--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20.txt 2018-09-27 15:13:41.686981820 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21.txt 2018-09-27 15:13:41.794984443 -0700 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft V. Fuller Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis -Expires: March 30, 2019 Cisco Systems +Expires: March 31, 2019 Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - September 26, 2018 + September 27, 2018 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 Abstract This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache. @@ -35,21 +35,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 30, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2019. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -88,41 +88,42 @@ 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42 - B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43 - B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 1. Introduction This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and @@ -164,24 +165,24 @@ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and [RFC8174]. 3. Definition of Terms Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to - the Data-Plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI - value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified - encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets - following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. + addresses found in Data-Plane headers. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] + for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification + indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the + address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own address spaces. Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an EID. @@ -264,21 +265,21 @@ to an LEID. Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this - destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has + destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other side. Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's @@ -301,25 +302,25 @@ Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator reachability algorithms described in Section 10. Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set - for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count - of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from - a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. - There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a - Negative Map-Reply. + for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty, one with an encoded Locator + count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix + from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping + database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are + encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that send packets to destinations at LISP sites. Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has @@ -437,24 +439,25 @@ encapsulated for inter-site communication. o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an - additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header - would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic - engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic - engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists). + additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new + prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an + intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an + inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an agreement to build such a + path exists). In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service provider for Traffic Engineering purposes. Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology. @@ -823,29 +826,29 @@ of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: 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 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 to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a 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 copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) to the inner-header. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the @@ -953,27 +956,27 @@ MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the 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. 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 - 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 - is (L - H). + packet when the size is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP + Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message + to the source with a value of S, where S is (L - H). When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an 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 to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling @@ -1103,42 +1106,44 @@ encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used 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 received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. 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 - the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the - RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that - stored in the mapping database system provides reachability - information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the - mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing - Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section. + reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for the Locator + record is set to 1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST + NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a + Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides + reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not + part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the + Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next + section. 10. Routing Locator Reachability Several Data-Plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently defined. Please note that additional Control-Plane based reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an RLOC. 2. 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 algorithms described in this section. When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site IGP as follows: @@ -1514,22 +1519,22 @@ than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However, 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 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 still documented as reserved. o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made - optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote - ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any + optional. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume the + remote ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method 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 @@ -1550,21 +1555,21 @@ 20.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "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. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . @@ -1769,149 +1774,155 @@ The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. Appendix B. Document Change Log [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] -B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-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 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 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 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 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 +B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 o Posted late August 2018. o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. -B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 +B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 o Posted August 2018. o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed Standard. o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are 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 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 Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new OAM document. 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 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 Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM document. -B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 +B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 o Posted March 2018. o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and weights). o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing 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 Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during encapsulation and decapsulation. o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section from various commenters. o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. o More editorial changes. 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 Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi Iannone. o Ran IDNITs on the document. -B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 +B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 o Posted November 2017. o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] addresses. -B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 +B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 o Posted October 2017. o Put RTR definition before it is used. o Rename references that are now working group drafts. o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". @@ -1920,61 +1931,61 @@ o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Clarify when private 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 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 Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums 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 Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA 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 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 Include references to new RFCs published. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. o Remove references to "experimental". -B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 +B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 o Posted December 2016. o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. Authors' Addresses Dino Farinacci Cisco Systems