draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.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 28, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: March 15, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
August 27, 2018 September 11, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
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 28, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 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 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 21 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29
13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 38 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 38 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 39 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 40 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 40 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 41 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 41 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 41 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6 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 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 is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined
in [RFC8060]. in [RFC8060].
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format As LISP uses UDP encapsulation to carry traffic between xTRs across
the Internet, implementors should be aware of the provisions of
[RFC8085], especially those given in section 3.1.11 on congestion
control for UDP tunneling.
Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines
in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect UDP and
LISP headers against corruption.
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format
0 1 2 3 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 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 | DSCP |ECN| Total Length | / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source Routing Locator | | | Source Routing Locator |
skipping to change at page 18, line 24 skipping to change at page 19, line 21
Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to
perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header
to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field
(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. the case of IPv6) to the inner-header.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If
the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the
stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used
to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
skipping to change at page 20, line 45 skipping to change at page 21, line 43
MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.
When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and
then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the
destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR. encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.
This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates This behavior MAY be performed by the ITR only when the source host
a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0.
'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6 When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an
packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the
when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/ packet when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/
Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S
is (L - H). is (L - H).
When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU
issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.
This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500.
skipping to change at page 27, line 42 skipping to change at page 28, line 42
Locator-Set. Locator-Set.
Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number
in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value
allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups
(LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of
such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since
packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are
originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting
for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash
function on the inner header, as described above. function on the inner header, as described above. The source port
SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same flow.
Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation. encapsulation.
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
skipping to change at page 32, line 22 skipping to change at page 33, line 22
found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
18. Changes since RFC 6830 18. Changes since RFC 6830
For implementation considerations, the following changes have been For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
made to this document since RFC 6830 was published: made to this document since RFC 6830 was published:
o It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers o It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers
be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more
than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However, than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However,
this document recommends a maximum of 2 LISP headers. it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be
prepended to a packet.
o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
for [RFC8060]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named for [RFC8061]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named
the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is
still documented as reserved. still documented as reserved.
o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made
optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote
ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any
interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache
population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
for map-cache population. for map-cache population.
o The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length
are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures
to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
19. IANA Considerations 19. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP
Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as
skipping to change at page 33, line 12 skipping to change at page 34, line 14
lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
20. References 20. References
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-02 (work in progress), September 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-13 (work in progress), August 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>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
20.2. Informative References 20.2. Informative References
[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
skipping to change at page 34, line 29 skipping to change at page 35, line 47
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>. 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
skipping to change at page 36, line 26 skipping to change at page 37, line 42
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID [RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378, Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors. to the LISP authors.
skipping to change at page 38, line 5 skipping to change at page 40, 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-16 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
o Posted September 2018.
o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
has been shortened in length.
o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control.
o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
o Posted late August 2018. o Posted late August 2018.
o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.4. 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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.12. 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 35 skipping to change at page 42, line 48
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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016. o Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer Dave Meyer
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
90 lines changed or deleted 120 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/