draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Internet-Draft lispers.net
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting
Expires: May 8, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: December 18, 2019 D. Meyer
1-4-5.net
D. Lewis
Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
November 4, 2018 June 16, 2019
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27
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 49
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 May 8, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29
13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
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-26 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 41
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 41
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 42
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 43
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 43
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 44
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 45
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 45
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 45 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 45
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 45
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 13
provisioning is required or necessary. provisioning is required or necessary.
LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from Data-Plane, LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from Data-Plane,
this document specifies the Data-Plane, how LISP-capable routers this document specifies the Data-Plane, how LISP-capable routers
(Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the
appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache,
called Map-Cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The Map-Cache called Map-Cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The Map-Cache
is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to LISP does not require changes to either the host protocol stack or to
underlay routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP underlay routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP
offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among
other features. other features.
Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
October 2006 (see [RFC4984]). October 2006 (see [RFC4984]).
This document specifies the LISP Data-Plane encapsulation and other This document specifies the LISP Data-Plane encapsulation and other
LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as well. of a LISP tunnel as well.
EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a distributed
distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings.
mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the
the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind"
"behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own IP the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses
addresses that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be
be transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-
Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has
no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be
This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators used.
can be used.
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally
short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is
responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC
mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID- mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-
to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and
relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively
static, and much more global in scope to LISP nodes. static, and much more widely scoped to LISP nodes.
EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID-
Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix
allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set
is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block. is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.
End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains
a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address
today, for example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] today, for example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet
MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be globally manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be unique.
unique. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block associated
associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can be with the site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a
used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY be
be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network
topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In
addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local
structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure
is not visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit is not visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit
string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC
for a different device. When used in discussions with other for a different device. When used in discussions with other
Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an
"LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer "LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer
to an LEID. to an LEID.
skipping to change at page 12, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 33
ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
control message. control message.
5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and 5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to- matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to-
RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR
is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no match, is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no match,
the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is
returned to the ITR. returned to the ITR.
6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to 6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message, and
check for format validity), and stores the mapping information stores the mapping information from the packet. This information
from the packet. This information is stored in the ITR's EID-to- is stored in the ITR's EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache. Note that the Map-
RLOC Map-Cache. Note that the Map-Cache is an on-demand cache. Cache is an on-demand cache. An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in
An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in such a way that optimizes for such a way that optimizes for its resource constraints.
its resource constraints.
7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to 7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the
ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent
to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
Locator-Set policy. Locator-Set policy.
8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination 8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
skipping to change at page 18, line 49 skipping to change at page 18, line 49
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
Live' field. Live' field.
o The outer-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 inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
the case of IPv6) to the outer-header. the case of IPv6) to the outer-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]. order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as specified
ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner in [RFC6040].
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: 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) MUST 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 outer-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 as specified
the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that copy the 'ECN'
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the
stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used
to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between
the tunnel endpoints. Implementations exist that copy the 'ECN'
field from the outer header to the inner header even though field from the outer header to the inner header even though
[RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is RECOMMENDED [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is RECOMMENDED
that implementations change to support the behavior in [RFC6040]. that implementations change to support the behavior in [RFC6040].
Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
header minus 1. header minus 1.
Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
misconfiguration. misconfiguration.
The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 Some xTRs and PxTRs performs re-encapsulation operations and need to
and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic treat the 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) in a special way.
Class' field [RFC6040]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment Because the re-encapsulation operation is a sequence of two
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040]. An operations, namely a decapsulation followed by an encapsulation, the
ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner ECN bits MUST be treated as described above for these two operations.
header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/
PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped
outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward
the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE
indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and
becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the
tunnel endpoints.
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to-
RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator
sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to
the corresponding RLOC network attachment point. the corresponding RLOC network attachment point.
When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the
EID is done to the Map-Cache. EID is done to the Map-Cache.
When the lookup succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from the Map- When the lookup succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from the Map-
Cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location. Cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location.
If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using
the LISP Control-Plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The the LISP Control-Plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. While
mapping is then stored in the local Map-Cache to forward subsequent the mapping is being retrieved, the ITR/PITR can either drop or
packets addressed to the same EID-prefix. buffer the packets. This document does not have specific
recommendations about the action to be taken. It is up to the
deployer to consider whether or not it is desirable to buffer packets
and deploy a LISP implementation that offers the desired behaviour.
Once the mapping is resolved it is then stored in the local Map-Cache
to forward subsequent packets addressed to the same EID-prefix.
The Map-Cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based The Map-Cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based
on the associated Time to live. In addition, entries can be updated on the associated Time to live. In addition, entries can be updated
with more current information, see Section 13 for further information with more current information, see Section 13 for further information
on this. Finally, the Map-Cache also contains reachability on this. Finally, the Map-Cache also contains reachability
information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability
information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see
Section 10 for the specific mechanisms. Section 10 for the specific mechanisms.
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets
skipping to change at page 21, line 22 skipping to change at page 21, line 7
An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows: follows:
1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header
lengths. lengths.
2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
intermediate routers to fragment the packet. intermediate routers to fragment the packet. The network
administrator of the LISP deployment has to determine what is the
suitable value of L so to make sure that no MTU issues arise.
3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a 3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the
effective MTU can be met. That is, L = S + H. effective MTU can be met. That is, L = S + H.
When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets
from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the
original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then
skipping to change at page 21, line 49 skipping to change at page 21, line 36
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 MUST 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 ICMPv4 ICMP packet when the size (adding in the size of the encapsulation header)
Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-
to the source with a value of S, where S is (L - H). 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 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 23, line 19 skipping to change at page 23, line 9
to 1. to 1.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
to use for the inner destination EID lookup. to use for the inner destination EID lookup.
For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case 24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case
details. details.
The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT
[RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That means the Control-Plane
can store more instances than a given Data-Plane can use. Multiple
Data-Planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as the low-order 24
bits don't overlap among xTRs.
9. Routing Locator Selection 9. Routing Locator Selection
The Map-Cache contains the state used by ITRs and PITRs to The Map-Cache contains the state used by ITRs and PITRs to
encapsulate packets. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside encapsulate packets. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside
the LISP site to a destination outside of the site a longest-prefix the LISP site to a destination outside of the site a longest-prefix
match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache (see Section 6). match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache (see Section 6).
The lookup returns a single Locator-Set containing a list of RLOCs The lookup returns a single Locator-Set containing a list of RLOCs
corresponding to the EID's topological location. Each RLOC in the corresponding to the EID's topological location. Each RLOC in the
Locator-Set is associated with a 'Priority' and 'Weight', this Locator-Set is associated with a 'Priority' and 'Weight', this
information is used to select the RLOC to encapsulate. information is used to select the RLOC to encapsulate.
skipping to change at page 24, line 14 skipping to change at page 23, line 47
splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs
outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some
sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
list are unreachable. list are unreachable.
o The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list. o The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list.
In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
spread across the subset list. Control is shared by the server- spread across the subset list. See Section 12 for details on
side determining the list and the client-side determining load load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side
determining the list and the client-side determining load
distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable. server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.
o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send
a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send
Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the
client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability
and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side
ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the
outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR
skipping to change at page 24, line 47 skipping to change at page 24, line 33
messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source
RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a
few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by
sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source
address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this
"verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry "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 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- from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-
Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent
packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the
verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism SHOULD NOT be used over
Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed
deployments. Refer to 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 26, line 22 skipping to change at page 26, line 8
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in
the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the
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.
issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits.
Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and
SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. In addition
Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning
(Section 13.1) to prevent race conditions. Refer to Section 16 for
security issues regarding this mechanism.
If an ITR encapsulates a packet to an ETR and the packet is received If an ITR encapsulates a packet to an ETR and the packet is received
and decapsulated by the ETR, it is implied but not confirmed by the and decapsulated by the ETR, it is implied but not confirmed by the
ITR that the ETR's RLOC is reachable. In most cases, the ETR can ITR that the ETR's RLOC is reachable. In most cases, the ETR can
also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the
possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of unidirectional possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of unidirectional
traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack
of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable. of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable.
Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine
reachability. reachability.
skipping to change at page 27, line 44 skipping to change at page 27, line 37
unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.
The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the
E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the
echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set
the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is
enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC- enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC-
probe Map-Reply message. probe Map-Reply message.
Many implementations default to not advertising they are echo-nonce
capable in Map-Reply messages and so RLOC-probing tends to be used
for RLOC reachability.
The echo-nonce mechanism SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet
and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to
Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism.
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site
A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and
infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID- infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site. reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an
ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data
skipping to change at page 28, line 47 skipping to change at page 28, line 47
2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators 2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping. stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.
3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators 3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the
Locator-Set. Locator-Set.
The specific hash algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of The specific hash algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of
scope for this document and does not prevent interoperability. scope for this document and does not prevent interoperability.
Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number The Source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the
in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value same flow. Also note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the
allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups source port number in the outer UDP header needs to be set.
(LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of Selecting a hashed value allows core routers that are attached to
such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets
packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are across member links of such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see
originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting a single flow, since packets have a source address of the ITR, for
for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash packets that are originated by different EIDs at the source site. A
function on the inner header, as described above. The source port suggested setting for the source port number computed by an ITR is a
SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same flow. 5-tuple hash function on the inner header, as described above. The
source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same
flow.
Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation. encapsulation.
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
skipping to change at page 31, line 7 skipping to change at page 31, line 10
values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of
0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version 0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version
Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no
comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers. comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.
A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs
for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map- for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map-
Version Number. Version Number.
Map-Versioning SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD
only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16
for security issues regarding this mechanism.
See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for a more detailed analysis and See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for a more detailed analysis and
description of Database Map-Versioning. description of Database Map-Versioning.
14. Multicast Considerations 14. Multicast Considerations
A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself
does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast
routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates, routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates,
skipping to change at page 32, line 30 skipping to change at page 32, line 39
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 In what follows we highlight security considerations that apply when
follows we highlight security considerations that apply when LISP is LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in
deployed in environments such as those specified in Section 1.1. 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 and/or nonce of a victim's xTR can attacker able to spoof the RLOC and/or nonce of a victim's xTR can
manipulate such mechanisms to declare false information about the manipulate such mechanisms to declare false information about the
RLOC's reachability status. RLOC's reachability status.
As an exmple of such attacks an off-path attacker can exploit the For example of such attacks, an off-path attacker can exploit the
echo-nonce mechanism by sending data packets to an ITR with a random 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 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 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 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 reachable even when it may not be reachable. If the attack is
successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability status of the successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability status of the
ETR's RLOC until RLOC-probing detects the correct status. This time 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 frame is on the order of 10s of seconds. This specific attack can be
mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the network by deploying mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the network by deploying
uRPF BCP 38 [RFC2827]. In addition and in order to exploit this uRPF BCP 38 [RFC2827]. In addition and in order to exploit this
vulnerability, the off-path attacker must send echo-nonce packets at vulnerability, the off-path attacker must send echo-nonce packets at
high rate. If the nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it high rate. If the nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it
can protect itself from erroneious reachability attacks. can protect itself from erroneous 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 Locator-Status-Bits, echo-nonce and map-versioning SHOULD NOT be used
and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and
or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms. closed deployments. In addition Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be
In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective coupled with map-versioning to prevent race conditions.
technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the Control-Plane.
LISP implementations and deployments which permit outer header
fragments of IPv6 LISP encapsulated packets as a means of dealing
with MTU issues should also use implementation techniques in ETRs to
prevent this from being a DoS attack vector. Limits on the number of
fragments awaiting reassembly at an ETR, RTR, or PETR, and the rate
of admitting such fragments may be used.
17. Network Management Considerations 17. Network Management Considerations
Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be
found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
18. Changes since RFC 6830 18. Changes since RFC 6830
For implementation considerations, the following changes have been For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
skipping to change at page 34, line 39 skipping to change at page 35, line 8
lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
20. References 20. References
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-03 (work in progress), February 2019.
[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-19 (work in progress), October draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February
2018. 2019.
[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 35, line 29 skipping to change at page 35, line 44
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
20.2. Informative References 20.2. Informative References
[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed",
1999, 1999,
<http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>. <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015. progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-02 (work in Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-04 (work in
progress), May 2018. progress), May 2019.
[OPENLISP] [OPENLISP]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008. Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
skipping to change at page 37, line 10 skipping to change at page 37, line 34
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
skipping to change at page 38, line 28 skipping to change at page 39, line 5
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>. March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
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
skipping to change at page 40, line 12 skipping to change at page 40, line 12
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
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-26 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27
o Posted April 2019 post telechat.
o Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions.
o Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with.
o LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed
environments.
o Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the
control-plane.
o 6831/8378 are now normative.
o Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes.
o Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26
o Posted late October 2018. o Posted late October 2018.
o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and
unassigned". unassigned".
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25
o Posted mid October 2018. o Posted mid October 2018.
o Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion o Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion
about echo-nonce attacks. about echo-nonce attacks.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
o Posted mid October 2018. o Posted mid October 2018.
o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.22. 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 44, line 15 skipping to change at page 44, line 35
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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.23. 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.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.24. 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.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.25. 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.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.26. 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.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.27. 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.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.28. 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 lispers.net
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems vaf.net Internet Consulting
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer Dave Meyer
Cisco Systems 1-4-5.net
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
EMail: darlewis@cisco.com EMail: darlewis@cisco.com
 End of changes. 72 change blocks. 
188 lines changed or deleted 210 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/