draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21.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 30, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: March 31, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
September 26, 2018 September 27, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21
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 30, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 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-20 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and
[RFC8174]. [RFC8174].
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to
the Data-Plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI addresses found in Data-Plane headers. See [AFN] and [RFC3232]
value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification
encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the
following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an
anycast address in each of their own address spaces. anycast address in each of their own address spaces.
Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an
EID. EID.
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
to an LEID. to an LEID.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a
LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then
prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this
destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has
better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the Internet on the other side. toward the Internet on the other side.
Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 29
Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section 10. reachability algorithms described in Section 10.
Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a
negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix
is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set
for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty, one with an encoded Locator
of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix
a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping
There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are
Negative Map-Reply. encoded in a Negative Map-Reply.
Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.
Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at LISP sites. send packets to destinations at LISP sites.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 21
encapsulated for inter-site communication. encapsulated for inter-site communication.
o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).
An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential
use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such
a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new
would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an
engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an
engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists). inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an agreement to build such a
path exists).
In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two
LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP
deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the
first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity
separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service
provider for Traffic Engineering purposes. provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.
Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology. Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
skipping to change at page 19, line 10 skipping to change at page 19, line 10
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 [RFC6040]. order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040].
ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner ITR 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 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer
header. header.
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
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 outer-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 [RFC6040]. 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
skipping to change at page 21, line 45 skipping to change at page 21, line 45
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 MAY be performed by the ITR only when the source host This behavior MUST be performed by the ITR only when the source host
originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0.
When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an
IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the
packet when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/ packet when the size is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP
Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message
is (L - H). to the source with a value of S, where S 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.
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
skipping to change at page 24, line 51 skipping to change at page 24, line 51
encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used
to fully populate the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is to fully populate the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is
stored and used for the time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a stored and used for the time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a
received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data
gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source
EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This
"gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to Section 16 for security "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to Section 16 for security
issues regarding this mechanism. issues regarding this mechanism.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1. When reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for the Locator
the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the record is set to 1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST
RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a
stored in the mapping database system provides reachability Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides
information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not
mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the
Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section. Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next
section.
10. Routing Locator Reachability 10. Routing Locator Reachability
Several Data-Plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are Several Data-Plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are
currently defined. Please note that additional Control-Plane based currently defined. Please note that additional Control-Plane based
reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is
also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
RLOC. RLOC.
2. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the 2. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely to be
reachable.
3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability 3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability
algorithms described in this section. algorithms described in this section.
When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
IGP as follows: IGP as follows:
skipping to change at page 33, line 36 skipping to change at page 33, line 36
than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However, than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However,
it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be
prepended to a packet. 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 [RFC8061]. 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. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume the
ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any remote 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 o The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length
are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures
to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
19. IANA Considerations 19. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 34, line 25 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-15 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 (work in progress),
September 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>.
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-20 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21
o Late-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20
o Posted late-September 2018. o Posted late-September 2018.
o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19
o Posted late-September 2018. o Posted late-September 2018.
o More editorial changes. o More editorial changes.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18
o Posted mid-September 2018. o Posted mid-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja).
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.7. 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 implementers 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.16. 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 43, line 15 skipping to change at page 43, line 15
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 addresses can be used. o Clarify when private addresses can be used.
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
o Posted August 2017. o Posted August 2017.
o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.22. 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. 38 change blocks. 
77 lines changed or deleted 87 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/