draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25.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 15, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: April 24, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
October 12, 2018 October 21, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25
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 15, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 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 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 45
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
skipping to change at page 26, line 25 skipping to change at page 26, line 25
ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating
packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume
using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set
per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the
Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the
list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that
particular EID-Prefix. Refer to Section 16 for security related particular EID-Prefix. Refer to Section 16 for security related
issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits. issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from If an ITR encapsulates a packet to an ETR and the packet is received
the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In and decapsulated by the ETR, it is implied but not confirmed by the
most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to ITR that the ETR's RLOC is reachable. In most cases, the ETR can
be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the
of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of unidirectional
NOT use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack
unreachable. Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable.
determine reachability. Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine
reachability.
The security considerations of Section 16 related with data-plane
reachability applies to the data-plane RLOC reachability mechanisms
described in this section.
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm
When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different
sites, a Data-Plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to sites, a Data-Plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to
determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to
solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit
nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data
packet. packet.
skipping to change at page 32, line 27 skipping to change at page 32, line 30
o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on
can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's
routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings. routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.
For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see
Section 16. Section 16.
16. Security Considerations 16. Security Considerations
A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835] in what A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835]. In what
follows we provide a summary when LISP is deployed in non-trustable follows we highlight security considerations that apply when LISP is
environments. deployed in environments such as those specified in Section 1.1.
The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a
mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR can mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR can
learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and
source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping
into its Map-Cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID into its Map-Cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID
address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If
the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by
redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially
overloading it. overloading it.
The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC Data- The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC Data-
Plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce- Plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce-
Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be
manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path
attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate such attacker able to spoof the RLOC and/or nonce of a victim's xTR can
mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable. This can be used manipulate such mechanisms to declare false information about the
also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim RLOC's reachability status.
of overload it.
As an exmple of such attacks an off-path attacker can exploit the
echo-nonce mechanism by sending data packets to an ITR with a random
nonce from an ETR's spoofed RLOC. Note the attacker must guess a
valid nonce the ITR is requesting to be echoed within a small window
of time. The goal is to convince the ITR that the ETR's RLOC is
reachable even when it may not be reachable. If the attack is
successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability status of the
ETR's RLOC until RLOC-probing detects the correct status. This time
frame is on the order of 10s of seconds. This specific attack can be
mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the network by deploying
uRPF BCP 38 [RFC2827]. In addition and in order to exploit this
vulnerability, the off-path attacker must send echo-nonce packets at
high rate. If the nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it
can protect itself from erroneious reachability attacks.
Map-Versioning is a Data-Plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR Map-Versioning is a Data-Plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR
that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the
peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a
fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map- fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map-
versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive
amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them. amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them.
Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment
and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB
skipping to change at page 34, line 31 skipping to change at page 34, line 44
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-17 (work in progress), October draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 (work in progress), October
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>.
skipping to change at page 35, line 5 skipping to change at page 35, line 20
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
skipping to change at page 40, line 16 skipping to change at page 40, line 16
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. 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-24 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
o Posted mid October 2018. o Posted mid October 2018.
o Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion
about echo-nonce attacks.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
o Posted mid October 2018.
o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 B.4. 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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.20. 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 48 skipping to change at page 44, line 9
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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.22. 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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.23. 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.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.24. 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.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.25. 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.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.26. 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
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
69 lines changed or deleted 102 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/