draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer
Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis
Expires: February 25, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: February 28, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
August 24, 2018 August 27, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
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. according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 February 25, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 38 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 38
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 38
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 38 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 39
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 39 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 39 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 40
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 40
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 40 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 40 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 41
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 41 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 41
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 41
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
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 21, line 25 skipping to change at page 21, line 25
An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows
and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]: and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]:
1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per 1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can
deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR. deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.
2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet 2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet
with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can
deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message to the ITR. The ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message to the ITR. The ITR will parse
ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is the ICMPv6 message to determine which Locator is affected by the
affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value
effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry. in the Map-Cache entry.
3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the 3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Unreachable/ EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv6 "Packet Too
Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source. The packet size Big" message back to the source. The packet size advertised by
advertised by the ITR in the ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation- the ITR in the ICMPv6 message is the effective MTU minus the LISP
Needed message is the effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation encapsulation length.
length.
Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP
There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level. There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level.
For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping
addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization. addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization.
skipping to change at page 33, line 17 skipping to change at page 33, line 17
20.1. Normative References 20.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018. lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.
[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-12 (work in progress), July draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 (work in progress), August
2018. 2018.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
skipping to change at page 38, line 5 skipping to change at page 38, 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-15 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
o Posted late August 2018.
o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
o Posted August 2018. o Posted August 2018.
o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
Standard. Standard.
o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
o Posted July 2018 IETF week. o Posted July 2018 IETF week.
o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
o Posted March IETF Week 2018. o Posted March IETF Week 2018.
o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
OAM document. OAM document.
o Some references changed from normative to informative o Some references changed from normative to informative
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
o Posted July 2018. o Posted July 2018.
o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
o Posted March 2018. o Posted March 2018.
o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and
Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM
document. document.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
o Posted March 2018. o Posted March 2018.
o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-
Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and
weights). weights).
o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2
(ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port
Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC
probing probing
o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'. o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
o Posted January 2018. o Posted January 2018.
o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
encapsulation and decapsulation. encapsulation and decapsulation.
o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section
from various commenters. from various commenters.
o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
o More editorial changes. o More editorial changes.
o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
o Posted January 2018. o Posted January 2018.
o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
Iannone. Iannone.
o Ran IDNITs on the document. o Ran IDNITs on the document.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
o Posted November 2017. o Posted November 2017.
o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
addresses. addresses.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
o Posted October 2017. o Posted October 2017.
o Put RTR definition before it is used. o Put RTR definition before it is used.
o Rename references that are now working group drafts. 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 o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other
hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
skipping to change at page 40, line 22 skipping to change at page 40, line 35
o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
o Clarify when private addreses can be used. o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
o Posted August 2017. o Posted August 2017.
o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
o Posted July 2017. o Posted July 2017.
o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016. o Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
46 lines changed or deleted 53 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/