--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07.txt 2018-01-09 10:13:40.910342454 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt 2018-01-09 10:13:41.022345138 -0800 @@ -1,145 +1,146 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft V. Fuller Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer -Expires: May 15, 2018 D. Lewis +Expires: July 13, 2018 D. Lewis Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - November 11, 2017 + January 9, 2018 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 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 - map-cache is populated by the LISP Control-Plane protocol - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. + according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among other features. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 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 https://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 May 15, 2018. + This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2018. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 31 - 13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 + 13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 + 16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 38 - 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37 + 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 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 + 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 - 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 - 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 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-06 . . . . . . . . 52 - B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 52 - B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 52 - B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52 - B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 53 - B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 53 - B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 53 - B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 53 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 + 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 + Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 51 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 51 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 51 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 51 + B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52 + B.9. 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 attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network - infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. + infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP + encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static + provisioning is required or necessary. LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane, this document specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The map-cache is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to @@ -159,97 +160,115 @@ describes the LISP architecture. 2. Requirements Notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Definition of Terms - Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are an address - block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with - any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular - service provider) and are therefore not topologically aggregatable - in the routing system. + Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an + address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to + the data-plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI + value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified + encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets + following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. - Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an address block - assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site - connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service - provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and - is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into - the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been - implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally - visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically assigned and - aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this - demonstrably non-scalable practice. + Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to + refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on + multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an + anycast address in each of their own address spaces. - Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 - [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 - or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically - aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to - which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is - defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be - thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the - same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. + Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate + a connection initiation attempt by an EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP + site are the first to get involved in forwarding a packet from the + source EID. + + Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where + the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header + destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating + ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and + delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the + EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is + discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database + designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other + cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design + for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on + the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised. + + Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP + packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is + one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and + forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In + general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the + Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site + end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to + be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint + of a LISP tunnel as well. + + EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global + distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC + mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of + the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes + "behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own + globally visible IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient + conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for + each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has no + negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be + used. + + EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally + short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is + responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC + mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID- + to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and + relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively + static, and much more global in scope. + + EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are + allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- + Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix + allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set + is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block. + + End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates + packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system + supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP + header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing + domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router + device, or any network appliance. 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 the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address today, for example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally unique. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In - addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local + addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC - for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a - given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the - same entity in both cases. When used in discussions with other + for a different device. When used in discussions with other Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer to an LEID. - EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are - allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- - Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses that make up - a "database mapping". EID-Prefix allocations can be broken up - into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be associated with the - larger EID-Prefix block. A globally routed address block (whether - PI or PA) is not inherently an EID-Prefix. A globally routed - address block MAY be used by its assignee as an EID block. The - converse is not supported. That is, a site that receives an - explicitly allocated EID-Prefix may not use that EID-Prefix as a - globally routed prefix. This would require coordination and - cooperation with the entities managing the mapping infrastructure. - Once this has been done, that block could be removed from the - globally routed IP system, if other suitable transition and access - mechanisms are in place. Discussion of such transition and access - mechanisms can be found in [RFC6832] and [RFC7215]. - - End-system: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates - packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system - supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP - header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing - domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router - device, or any network appliance. - Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the @@ -257,168 +276,127 @@ end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other side. Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's supplied EID). - TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider - network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic - Engineering purposes. - - Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP - packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is - one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and - forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In - general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the - Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site - end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to - be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint - of a LISP tunnel as well. - - TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider - network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering - purposes. - - xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data - flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the - router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with - the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at - the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR - functionality at the CE router. - - Re-encapsulating Tunneling in RTRs: Re-encapsulating Tunneling - occurs when an RTR (Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router) acts like an - ETR to remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new - LISP header. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the - RTR without adding the overhead of additional tunnel headers. Any - references to tunnels in this specification refer to dynamic - encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically configured. When - using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not - create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. + LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer + to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- + specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR + prepends or an ETR strips. LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), or Proxy-ETR (PETR). - EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally - short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is - responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC - mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID- - to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and - relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively - static, and much more global in scope. - - EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global - distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC - mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of - the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes - "behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own - globally visible IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient - conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for - each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has no - negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be - used. - - Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has - more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY - be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing - as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header - is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" - header. Any references to tunnels in this specification refer to - dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically - configured. - - LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer - to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- - specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR - prepends or an ETR strips. + LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are + under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside + in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the + edge network from the core network. - Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an - address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to - the data-plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI - value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified - encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets - following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. + Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the + LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ + down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as + a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability + status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator + reachability algorithms described in Section 10. Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. - Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where - the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header - destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating - ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and - delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the - EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is - discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database - designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other - cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design - for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on - the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised. - However, this is discouraged if the core is to scale by having - less EID-Prefixes stored in the core router's routing tables. + Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an address block + assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site + connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service + provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and + is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into + the underlay network. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been + implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally + visible prefix. - Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A - PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that - send packets to destinations at LISP sites. + Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are an address + block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with + any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular + service provider) and are therefore not topologically aggregatable + in the routing system. Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. - Route-returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the + Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A + PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that + send packets to destinations at LISP sites. + + Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has + more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY + be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing + as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header + is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" + header. + + Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to + remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP + header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this + allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the + overhead of additional tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels + in this specification refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they + are never statically configured. When using multiple mapping + database systems, care must be taken to not create re- + encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. + + Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination. When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the destination of the original message appears as the source of the returned message. - LISP site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are - under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside - in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the - edge network from the core network. - - Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate - a connection initiation attempt by an EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP - site are the first to get involved in obtaining database Map-Cache - entries by sending Map-Request messages. + Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 + [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 + or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable + blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it + attaches to the underlay network; where the topology is defined by + the connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be + assigned to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a + site. Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a - destination EID. The ETR(s) at the destination LISP site may be - the first to send Map-Replies to the source site initiating the - connection. The ETR(s) at this destination site can obtain - mappings by gleaning information from Map-Requests, Data-Probes, - or encapsulated packets. + destination EID. - Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the - LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ - down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as - a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability - status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator - reachability algorithms described in Section 10. + TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider + network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering + purposes. - Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to - refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on - multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an - anycast address in each of their own address spaces. + TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider + network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic + Engineering purposes. + + xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data + flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the + router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with + the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at + the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR + functionality at the CE router. 4. Basic Overview One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do not change. In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs). Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination @@ -454,44 +432,42 @@ o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information. o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. - o When a router originates packets, it may use as a source address + o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), - TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it may + TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC; an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be encapsulated for inter-site communication. o EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a manner that is optimized for administrative convenience and to facilitate - scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. The hierarchy is - based on an address allocation hierarchy that is independent of - the network topology. + scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. - o EIDs may also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for + o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic @@ -527,25 +503,25 @@ was not using LISP. o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be located anywhere in the LISP site. - o Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database system by using the - LISP control-plane protocol documented in - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. A Map-Request is sent for an external - destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding - table or matches a default route. + o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the + destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a + default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database + system by using the LISP control-plane protocol documented in + [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol. Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server host2.xyz.example.com: 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This @@ -594,35 +570,36 @@ of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to the attached destination host. 9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet. Such a cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping and only contains a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending - a LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR may + a LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC. 5. LISP Encapsulation Details Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is returned to the source. - This specification RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support - for one of the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two - existing schemes are detailed in Section 7. + In the case when fragmentation is needed, this specification + RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support for one of the + proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two existing schemes + are detailed in Section 7. Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6 packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined in [RFC8060]. @@ -621,61 +598,60 @@ architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6 packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined in [RFC8060]. 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format - 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | + / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Source Routing Locator | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Destination Routing Locator | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 | UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | + / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Source EID | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Destination EID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IHL = IP-Header-Length 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | + / |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit | v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | O + + u | | t + Source Routing Locator + e | | r + + | | @@ -689,21 +665,21 @@ \ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 | UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - / |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | + / |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | I + + n | | n + Source EID + e | | r + + | | @@ -704,48 +680,47 @@ I + + n | | n + Source EID + e | | r + + | | H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d | | r + + | | - ^ + Destination EID + \ | | \ + + \ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions - Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram - received from the originating host. The source and destination IP - addresses are EIDs [RFC0791] [RFC8200]. + Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the + datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] + [RFC2474]. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs. Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known IANA-assigned port value 4341. UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero - by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 encapsulation + by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation [RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP 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 choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the verification, or performs the verification successfully, the packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP @@ -881,32 +856,32 @@ Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment - in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. - ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner + in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. An + ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the - value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR - decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer - header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the - packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications - when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes - marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel - endpoints. + value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/ + PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped + outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward + the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE + indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and + becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the + tunnel endpoints. 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to the corresponding RLOC network attachment point. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the @@ -927,21 +902,21 @@ information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see Section 10 for the specific mechanisms. 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed the path MTU between the ITR and ETR. It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful - mechanism should be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since + mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR also apply to a TE-ITR. 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as @@ -949,21 +924,21 @@ 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header lengths. 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any intermediate routers to fragment the packet. 3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a - packet, in octets, an ITR must receive from the source so the + packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the effective MTU can be met. That is, L = S + H. When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then prepended to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. @@ -1038,28 +1013,28 @@ 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. For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a 24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case details. The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT - [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used is 32 bits in length. That means the - control-plane can store more instances than a given data-plane can - use. Multiple data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as - the low-order 24 bits don't overlap among xTRs. + [RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That means the control-plane + can store more instances than a given data-plane can use. Multiple + data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as the low-order 24 + bits don't overlap among xTRs. 9. Routing Locator Selection - Both the client-side and server-side may need control over the + Both the client-side and server-side MAY need control over the selection of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID- to-RLOC Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request messages. The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the controls that are available: o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use @@ -1120,43 +1095,43 @@ stored in the mapping database system provides reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section. 10. Routing Locator Reachability Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently defined: - 1. An ETR may examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of + 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an RLOC. - 2. An ITR may receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host + 2. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices in treating these conditions. 3. An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address. - 4. An ITR may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a + 4. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a non-LISP-capable site. - 5. An ITR may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a + 5. An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the ITR. 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing. @@ -1187,21 +1162,22 @@ When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that - particular EID-Prefix. + particular EID-Prefix. Refer to Section 19 for security related + issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits. When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 address is configured on a loopback interface. When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map- Replies. However, using this approach is unreliable because many @@ -1263,69 +1239,68 @@ E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the path to and from the ETR is up. The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is variable and is a choice left for the implementation. If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the - path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision may be overridden by + path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision MAY be overridden by other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for that EID-Prefix. Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce mechanism to operate. - The ITR and ETR may both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the + The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting. However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the - ETR receiving traffic at a site may not be the same device as an ITR + ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an ITR that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC- probe Map-Reply message. - Note that other Locator reachability mechanisms are being researched - and can be used to compliment or even override the echo nonce - algorithm. See the next section for an example of control-plane - probing. + Note other Locator Reachability mechanisms can be used to compliment + or even override the echo nonce algorithm. See the next section for + an example of control-plane probing. 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply messages is used for RLOC-Probing. RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator address from one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to the mapping database system as one would when soliciting mapping data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of - the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR may include a + the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR MAY include a mapping data record for its own database mapping information that contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval. When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping data for the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get @@ -1338,53 +1313,49 @@ reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT) estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times is very small. - Continued research and testing will attempt to characterize the - tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message overhead. - 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site - A site may be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and + A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID- Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site. When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data header. It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub- - ranges of the EID-Prefixes. This problem is under investigation with - the expectation that experiments will tell us more. Note that this - is not a new problem introduced by the LISP architecture. The - problem exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its - reachability upstream. + ranges of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem + introduced by the LISP architecture. The problem exists today when a + multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its reachability upstream. 12. Routing Locator Hashing - When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to - a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set for the EID-Prefix may contain - different Priority values for each locator address. When more than - one best Priority Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load- - share traffic against the corresponding Locators. + When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message + that is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set + for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values + for each locator address. When more than one best Priority Locator + exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against the + corresponding Locators. - The following hash algorithm may be used by an ITR to select a + The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping: 1. Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional 5-tuple hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash includes the source and destination addresses; source and destination TCP, UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers; and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site. When a packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and destination addresses only from the header are used to compute @@ -1550,21 +1521,21 @@ Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map- Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database system. Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the authoritative source of the mapping data. When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not - have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it MAY not send + have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to obtain a Map-Cache entry. 13.3. Database Map-Versioning When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and @@ -1641,21 +1612,21 @@ few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement LISP: o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer destination address may not be the address of the router. This makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating - that control-plane processing should be performed. The forwarding + that control-plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data- plane. o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action. @@ -1749,53 +1720,53 @@ 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 versus distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating Tunneling. When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, - the following issues should be considered: + the following issues SHOULD be considered: o Are the xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all the memories of each router? A centralized cache is when an ITR keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. The packet takes a direct path to the destination Locator. A distributed cache is when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel Routers (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries for the EIDs it is encapsulating to. So, the packet takes a path through RTRs that have a different set of cache entries. o Should management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a few xTRs, just enough for redundancy? o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load, since caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand, using more ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to- RLOC mappings need to be explicitly configured. When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, the - following issues should be considered: + following issues SHOULD be considered: o Flat tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between the source site and destination site. This generally offers better paths between sources and destinations with a single encapsulation path. o Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again further encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to perform Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the site has some control, since the site is prepending a new encapsulation header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site - may have control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if + MAY have control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. Recursive Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but with the benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that have more resources available. o The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only require one encapsulation header. So, if a packet needs to be re- routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re- Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC. @@ -1891,21 +1862,21 @@ addresses MUST be used only in the outer IP header so the NAT device can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST be translated before encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs are not in use. Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co- located in the same device. 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second - ITR's cache may not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping + ITR's cache MAY not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping entries as the first. If this second ITR does not have these mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved from the mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system. 18. Traceroute Considerations When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it to see the entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR @@ -2039,221 +2010,164 @@ Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map- versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them. Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB - or gleaning) should be verified with other reachability mechanisms. + or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms. In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the control-plane. 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 this - data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226]. + data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. 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 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-06 (work in progress), October + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), December 2017. - [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] - Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. - Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 - (work in progress), October 2017. - [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . - [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within - ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November - 1998, . + [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, + "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS + Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, + . [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, . - [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced - by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, - January 2002, . - [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, . [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August 2006, . - [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- - 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, - DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, - . - - [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an - IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, - . - - [RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path - Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March 2009, - . - [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, . - [RFC6115] Li, T., Ed., "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture", - RFC 6115, DOI 10.17487/RFC6115, February 2011, - . - [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, . - [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID - Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, - . - - [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, - "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical - Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, - January 2013, . - - [RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID - Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013, - . - - [RFC7214] Andersson, L. and C. Pignataro, "Moving Generic Associated - Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry", - RFC 7214, DOI 10.17487/RFC7214, May 2014, - . - - [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- - Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation - Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment - Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April - 2014, . - [RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833, DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016, . - [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID - Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, - . - - [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol - (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, - DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, - . + [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for + Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, + RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, + . [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, . 22.2. Informative References [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, . [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", 1999, . [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-00 - (work in progress), May 2017. + Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01 + (work in progress), November 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-mn] Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive - RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00 (work in - progress), June 2017. + RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in + progress), November 2017. + + [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] + Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. + Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 + (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", - draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06 (work in - progress), August 2017. + draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work in + progress), November 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private - Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-00 (work in - progress), May 2017. + Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work in + progress), November 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. [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin, "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996. @@ -2267,89 +2181,106 @@ [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, . [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February 2001, . + [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced + by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, + January 2002, . + [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, . - [RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic - Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, DOI 10.17487/RFC4107, - June 2005, . - [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005, . [RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007, . [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, . - [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support - Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480, - February 2012, . - - [RFC6518] Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and Authentication for - Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines", RFC 6518, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6518, February 2012, - . - [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 2013, . [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, . + [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID + Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, + . + [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013, . - [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to - Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, - DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013, - . - [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, . [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, . + [RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID + Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013, + . + + [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- + Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation + Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment + Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April + 2014, . + + [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID + Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, + . + [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, February 2017, . + [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol + (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, + . + + [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. + Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated + Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, + May 2017, . + Appendix A. Acknowledgments An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value to the LISP authors. A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a @@ -2381,28 +2312,41 @@ 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-06 +B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 + + o Posted January 2018. + + o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. + + o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. + + o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi + Iannone. + + o Ran IDNITs on the document. + +B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 o Posted November 2017. o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] addresses. -B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 +B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 o Posted October 2017. o Put RTR definition before it is used. o Rename references that are now working group drafts. o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". @@ -2411,76 +2355,76 @@ o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Clarify when private addreses can be used. -B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 +B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 o Posted August 2017. o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. -B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 +B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 +B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 +B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 o Posted April 2017. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. -B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 +B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 +B.9. 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 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: farinacci@gmail.com + Vince Fuller Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com Dave Meyer Cisco Systems