draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24.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: April 6, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: April 15, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
October 3, 2018 October 12, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
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 April 6, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 6
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44
B.25. 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 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside
in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
edge network from the core network. edge network from the core network.
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. An ETR MUST
rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the
Locator-Status-Bits.
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, one with an encoded Locator 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 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 from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping
database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are
encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. encoded in a Negative Map-Reply.
skipping to change at page 24, line 36 skipping to change at page 24, line 36
controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer- controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer-
header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the
server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or
Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST
assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority
with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding
cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on
Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large.
Instead of using the Map-Cache or mapping system, RLOC information Instead of using the Map-Cache or mapping system, RLOC information
MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map- MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or Map-Request
Request messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source
source RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a
used for a few seconds, pending verification. Verification is few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by
performed by sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner- sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source
header IP source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this
reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry
Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the time indicated
time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-
verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent
for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches the EID- packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the
Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to
refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. Section 16 for security 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 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for the Locator 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 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 NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a
Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides
reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not
part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the
Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next
section. section.
skipping to change at page 34, line 31 skipping to change at page 34, line 31
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-16 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 (work in progress), October
September 2018. 2018.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 39, line 17 skipping to change at page 39, line 17
An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors. to the LISP authors.
A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
practical and incremental transition for the Internet. practical and incremental transition for the Internet.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have The original authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people
contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal. who have contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this
They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller, proposal. They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel,
Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston, Jason Schiller, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay
David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley, Gill, Geoff Huston, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted
Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Seely, Mark Townsley, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter
Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier
Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry Bonaventure, Luigi Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel
Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van Halpern, Terry Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas,
Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc
Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap
Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin, Lahiri, David Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver,
Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari Fred Templin, Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro
Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu, Marques, Jari Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain,
Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri Xu Xiaohu, Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John
Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina Drake, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job
Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils, Snijders, Vina Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White,
Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. Clarence Filsfils, Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez.
This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF. This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working
group document that became this RFC. group document that became this RFC.
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.
The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the
people who help put LISP on standards track in the IETF. They
include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino,
Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete
Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kuhlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.
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-22 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
o Posted mid October 2018.
o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23
o Posted early October 2018. o Posted early October 2018.
o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security
concerns from Telechat. concerns from Telechat.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22
o Posted early October 2018. o Posted early October 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21
o Posted late-September 2018. o Posted late-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.19. 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 35 skipping to change at page 43, line 48
o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
o Clarify when private addresses can be used. o Clarify when private addresses can be used.
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.22. 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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.23. 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.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.24. 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.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016. o Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer Dave Meyer
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 108 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/