draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18.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: March 15, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: March 21, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
September 11, 2018 September 17, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18
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 March 15, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 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 43 skipping to change at page 2, line 43
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29
13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 40
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
skipping to change at page 19, line 25 skipping to change at page 19, line 25
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) to the inner-header. 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 [RFC6040]. 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
and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between
the tunnel endpoints. the tunnel endpoints. Implementations exist that copy the 'ECN'
field from the outer header to the inner header even though
[RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is RECOMMENDED
that implementations change to support the behavior in [RFC6040].
Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
header minus 1. header minus 1.
Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
misconfiguration. misconfiguration.
The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6
and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic
Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment Class' field [RFC6040]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. An in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040]. An
ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner 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 header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/ value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/
PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped
outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward
the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE
indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and
becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the
skipping to change at page 22, line 22 skipping to change at page 22, 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
ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message to the ITR. The ITR will parse ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message or an ICMPv4 Unreachable/
the ICMPv6 message to determine which Locator is affected by the Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The ITR will
effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is affected by
in the Map-Cache entry. the effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU
value 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 ICMPv6 "Packet Too EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv4 ICMP
Big" message back to the source. The packet size advertised by Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big"
the ITR in the ICMPv6 message is the effective MTU minus the LISP message back to the source. The packet size advertised by the
ITR in the ICMP message is the effective MTU minus the LISP
encapsulation length. encapsulation 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
skipping to change at page 34, line 19 skipping to change at page 34, line 25
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-02 (work in progress), September 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-14 (work in progress),
2018. September 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 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 34, line 46 skipping to change at page 35, line 5
"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>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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
skipping to change at page 40, 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-17 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18
o Posted mid-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja).
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
o Posted September 2018. o Posted September 2018.
o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
has been shortened in length. has been shortened in length.
o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control. o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control.
o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.4. 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 implementers are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.13. 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".
o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets.
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 addresses can be used.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.14. 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 Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.19. 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
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 74 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/