draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net Internet-Draft lispers.net
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting
Expires: December 18, 2019 D. Meyer Expires: May 20, 2020 D. Meyer
1-4-5.net 1-4-5.net
D. Lewis D. Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
June 16, 2019 November 17, 2019
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28
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 49 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 December 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 21
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28
13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 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-27 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 41
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 41 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 41
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 41 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 41
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 42
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 42 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 42
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 42
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 43
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 43
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 43 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 43
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 43
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 44 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 44 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 44
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 44
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 45 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 45
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 45 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 45
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 45 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 45
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 45 B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 45
B.29. 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
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between
the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by
devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network
infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP
encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static
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 as well as how LISP-capable
(Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the routers (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to
appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, the 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 the 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 14 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to
addresses found in Data-Plane headers. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] addresses found in Data-Plane headers. See [AFN] and [RFC3232]
for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification
indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the
address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to Anycast Address: Anycast Address refers to the same IPv4 or IPv6
refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time.
multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own
anycast address in each of their own address spaces. address spaces.
Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an
EID. EID.
Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header
destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating
ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and
delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the
EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is
discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database
designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other
cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design
for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.
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 distributed EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a distributed
database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings. database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings.
Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the
database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind" database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind"
the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses
that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be
transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator- transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP site and
Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs.
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 widely scoped 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 6, line 21
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
header when communicating outside of its routing domain. An end- header when communicating outside of its routing domain. An end-
system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any
network appliance. network appliance.
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 that identifies a host. EIDs are generally only found
the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains in the source and destination address fields of the first (most
a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a destination
today, for example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] EID the same way it obtains a destination address today, for
lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or
The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. The source
host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's
MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have
manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be unique. the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner;
An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block associated this means, among other things, that it MUST be unique. An EID is
with the site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block associated with the
host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY be site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a host to
assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a
topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID
structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure
is not visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit string
for a different device. When used in discussions with other that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an different device. When used in discussions with other Locator/ID
"LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID".
to an LEID. Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer to an
LEID.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a
LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then
prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this
destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has
better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the Internet on the other side. toward the Internet on the other side.
Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's
supplied EID).
LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer
to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR
prepends or an ETR strips. prepends or an ETR strips.
LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR),
or Proxy-ETR (PETR). or Proxy-ETR (PETR).
LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST
rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the
Locator-Status-Bits. Locator-Status-Bits.
Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a
negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix
is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set
for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty, one with an encoded Locator
count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix
from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping
database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are
encoded in a Negative Map-Reply.
Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.
Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at LISP sites. send packets to destinations at LISP sites.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
skipping to change at page 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 31
or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are
assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the
underlay network; where the topology is defined by the underlay network; where the topology is defined by the
connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate
that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a
destination EID. destination EID.
TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider
network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering
purposes.
TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider
network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic
Engineering purposes.
xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
functionality at the CE router. functionality at the CE router.
4. Basic Overview 4. Basic Overview
One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they
skipping to change at page 12, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 30
1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on
host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This
address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of
host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6 host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6
packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR. IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.
2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC 2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
of one of the ETRs at the destination site. The specific method of one of the ETRs at the destination site. A method to do this
used to do this is not described in this example. See is to send a LISP Map-Request, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for further information. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
3. The ITR sends a LISP Map-Request as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Map-Requests SHOULD be rate-limited.
4. The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the 3. The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the
corresponding ETR. When the Map-Request arrives at one of the corresponding ETR. When the Map-Request arrives at one of the
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 4. 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, and 5. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message, and
stores the mapping information from the packet. This information stores the mapping information from the packet. This information
is stored in the ITR's EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache. Note that the Map- is stored in the ITR's EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache. Note that the Map-
Cache is an on-demand cache. An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in Cache is an on-demand cache. An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in
such a way that optimizes for its resource constraints. such a way that optimizes for its resource constraints.
7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to 6. 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 7. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
the attached destination host. the attached destination host.
9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse 8. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps
the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source
RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet. RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet.
Such a cache entry is termed a "glean mapping" and only contains Such a cache entry is termed a "glean mapping" and only contains
a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete information a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete information
about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map- about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-
Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY also Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY also
influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC. influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC.
5. LISP Encapsulation Details 5. LISP Encapsulation Details
skipping to change at page 17, line 20 skipping to change at page 16, line 31
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored
and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is
set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the
nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP- nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See
Section 10.1 for details. Section 10.1 for details.
V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to
1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 13.1 for more details. 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 13.2 for more details.
This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this
case as: case as:
0 x 0 1 x x x x 0 x 0 1 x x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 18, line 32 skipping to change at page 17, line 46
The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a
Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See
Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for that the inner-header source EID address matches (longest-match).
an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at
with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.
When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:
o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
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 IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be field 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 IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
the case of IPv6) to the outer-header. field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as specified in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
in [RFC6040]. specified in [RFC6040].
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 IPv4 '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'/'Hop Limit' field, when the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' value
less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit'
perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can
to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the inner header to
check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check
packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a 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 IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be field 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 IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
the case of IPv6) to the inner-header. field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as specified treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion
in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that copy the 'ECN' as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that
field from the outer header to the inner header even though copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header
[RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is RECOMMENDED even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is
that implementations change to support the behavior in [RFC6040]. RECOMMENDED 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
skipping to change at page 22, line 7 skipping to change at page 21, line 18
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
An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as
and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]: follows:
1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per 1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can
deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR. deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.
2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet 2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet
with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can
deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message or an ICMPv4 Unreachable/ ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message or an ICMPv4 Unreachable/
Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The ITR will Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The ITR will
skipping to change at page 23, line 9 skipping to change at page 22, line 22
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.
Participants within a LISP deployment must agree on the meaning of
Instance ID values.
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 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 20
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. See Section 12 for details on spread across the subset list. See Section 12 for details on
load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side
determining the list and the client-side determining load 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 to "glean"
a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send the RLOCs. For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then
Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the the client-side ITR gives the client-side ITR responsibility for
client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability. Server-side
and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the
ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of
outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is
controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer- returned and can alternate using an outer-header source RLOC,
header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to
server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using
Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side
assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of zero. In
with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed in data
cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on Tunnel Routers can grow to be
Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. very large. Gleaning has several important considerations. A
"gleaned" Map-Cache entry is only stored and used for a few
Instead of using the Map-Cache or mapping system, RLOC information seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by
MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or Map-Request sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP
messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to
RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-
few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the
sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When
address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this a verified Map- Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer
"verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches
for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the time indicated the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism
from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map- SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be
Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16 for
packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the security issues regarding this mechanism.
verified entry. This "gleaning" 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.
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 25, line 13 skipping to change at page 24, line 25
reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is
also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
RLOC. RLOC.
2. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the 2. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely to be source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely to be
reachable. reachable. Please note that in some scenarios the RLOC from the
outer header can be an spoofable field.
3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability 3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability
algorithms described in this section. algorithms described in this section.
When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
IGP as follows: IGP as follows:
skipping to change at page 25, line 48 skipping to change at page 25, line 13
address is configured on a loopback interface. address is configured on a loopback interface.
RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The
Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0 Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an
RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal
value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
the packets they encapsulate. the packets they encapsulate.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in When an xTR decides to use 'Locator-Status-Bits' to affect
the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the reachability information, it acts as follows: ETRs decapsulating a
ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating packet will check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field.
packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will
using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a refrain from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as
value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set down. It will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding
per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit returns to a value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are
Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the associated with a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a
list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that Locator becomes unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds
particular EID-Prefix. to that Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply
will be set to zero for that particular EID-Prefix.
Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and
SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. In addition SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. In addition
Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning
(Section 13.1) to prevent race conditions. Refer to Section 16 for (Section 13.2) to prevent race conditions where Locator-Status-Bits
security issues regarding this mechanism. are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than intended. 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.
The security considerations of Section 16 related with data-plane The security considerations of Section 16 related to data-plane
reachability applies to the data-plane RLOC reachability mechanisms reachability applies to the data-plane RLOC reachability mechanisms
described in this section. 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.
When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is
forwarded as normal. When the ETR is an xTR (co-located as an ITR), forwarded as normal. When the ETR is an xTR (co-located as an ITR),
it next sends a data packet to the ITR (when it is an xTR co-located it then sends a data packet to the ITR (when it is an xTR co-located
as an ETR), it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set as an ETR), it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set
and E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that and E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that
the path to and from the ETR is up. the path to and from the ETR is up.
The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process
the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is
variable and is a choice left for the implementation. variable and is a choice left for the implementation.
If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the
skipping to change at page 29, line 30 skipping to change at page 28, line 46
Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to- store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not
know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
which ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, it is which ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, it is
desirable to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for desirable to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for
ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently
communicating with the ETR site using such mappings. communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.
This section defines a Data-Plane mechanism for updating EID-to-RLOC This section defines two Data-Plane mechanism for updating EID-to-
mappings. Additionally, the Solicit-Map Request (SMR) Control-Plane RLOC mappings. Additionally, the Solicit-Map Request (SMR) Control-
updating mechanism is specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Plane updating mechanism is specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end of 13.1. Locator-Status-Bits
a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings. We assume that new
mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping
but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list. So,
some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old
mapping that is used until they time out. When an ITR has only an
old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that
correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply
ignores them. However, this can only happen for locator addresses
that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in the
existing Locator-Set.
When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, to Locator-Status-Bits (LSB) can also be used to keep track of the
maintain lexicographic order, SMR procedure Locator status (up or down) when EID-to-RLOC mappings are changing.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] is used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the When LSB are used in a LISP deployment, all LISP tunnel routers MUST
new Locator-Status-Bit mappings. implement both ITR and ETR capabilities (therefore all tunnel routers
are effectively xTRs). In this section the term "source xTR" is used
to refer to the xTR setting the LSB and "destination xTR" is used to
refer to the xTR receiving the LSB. The procedure is as follows:
When a Locator record is removed from a Locator-Set, ITRs that have First, when a Locator record is added or removed from the Locator-
the mapping cached will not use the removed Locator because the xTRs Set, the source xTR will signal this by sending a Solicit-Map Request
will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0. So, even if the Locator is in (SMR) Control-Plane message [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to the
the list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs destination xTR. At this point the source xTR MUST NOT use LSB
can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as (L-bit = 0) since the destination xTR site has outdated information.
well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This The source xTR will setup a 'use-LSB' timer.
forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed
Locator.
If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one Second and as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], upon reception
will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new of the SMR message the destination xTR will retrieve the updated EID-
records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be to-RLOC mappings by sending a Map-Request.
useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings
can be efficiently packed.
We propose here a Data-Plane mechanism (Map-Versioning specified in And third, when the 'use-LSB' timer expires, the source xTR can use
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]) to update the contents of EID-to-RLOC again LSB with the destination xTR to signal the Locator status (up
mappings. Please note that in addition the Solicit-Map Request or down). The specific value for the 'use-LSB' timer depends on the
(specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) is a Control-Plane LISP deployment, the 'use-LSB' timer needs to be large enough for the
mechanisms that can be used to update EID-to-RLOC mappings. destination xTR to retreive the updated EID-to-RLOC mappings. A
RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5 minutes.
13.1. Database Map-Versioning 13.2. Database Map-Versioning
When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set. started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.
An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version
Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs
include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and
skipping to change at page 31, line 10 skipping to change at page 30, line 18
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-Version requires that ETRs within the LISP site are synchronized
with respect to the Map-Version Number, EID-prefix and the set and
status (up/down) of the RLOCs. The use of Map-Versioning without
proper synzhronization may cause traffic disruption. The
synchronization protocol is out-of-the-scope of this document, but
MUST keep ETRs synchronized within a 1 minute window.
Map-Versioning SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD Map-Versioning SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD
only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16 only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16
for security issues regarding this mechanism. 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
skipping to change at page 31, line 38 skipping to change at page 31, line 6
to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP
header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP
header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID. header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID.
The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address), The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address),
prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the
destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing
Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means to Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means to
determine the group address mapping. determine the group address mapping.
With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR prepends With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR prepends
its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header. its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header, just
Just like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address. like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address. This
This source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator
address, MUST be routable on the underlay. address, MUST be routable on the underlay.
There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native
multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping
System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay
with support from the Mapping System. See [RFC6831] and [RFC8378], with support from the Mapping System. See [RFC6831] and [RFC8378],
respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and
interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and
[RFC6832]. [RFC6832].
skipping to change at page 33, line 38 skipping to change at page 33, line 5
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.
Locator-Status-Bits, echo-nonce and map-versioning SHOULD NOT be used Locator-Status-Bits, echo-nonce and map-versioning SHOULD NOT be used
over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and
closed deployments. In addition Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be closed deployments. In addition Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be
coupled with map-versioning to prevent race conditions. coupled with map-versioning to prevent race conditions where Locator-
Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than
intended.
LISP implementations and deployments which permit outer header LISP implementations and deployments which permit outer header
fragments of IPv6 LISP encapsulated packets as a means of dealing fragments of IPv6 LISP encapsulated packets as a means of dealing
with MTU issues should also use implementation techniques in ETRs to with MTU issues should also use implementation techniques in ETRs to
prevent this from being a DoS attack vector. Limits on the number of 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 fragments awaiting reassembly at an ETR, RTR, or PETR, and the rate
of admitting such fragments may be used. of admitting such fragments may be used.
17. Network Management Considerations 17. Network Management Considerations
skipping to change at page 35, line 8 skipping to change at page 34, line 26
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-03 (work in progress), February 2019. lisp-6834bis-04 (work in progress), August 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos-
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-25 (work in progress),
2019. June 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 36, line 39 skipping to change at page 36, line 10
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-04 (work in Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-04 (work in
progress), May 2019. progress), May 2019.
[OPENLISP]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
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.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
skipping to change at page 40, line 14 skipping to change at page 40, line 14
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-27 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27
o Posted November 2019.
o Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators.
o Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning.
o Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27
o Posted April 2019 post telechat. o Posted April 2019 post telechat.
o Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions. o Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions.
o Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with. o Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with.
o LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed o LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed
environments. environments.
o Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the o Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the
control-plane. control-plane.
o 6831/8378 are now normative. o 6831/8378 are now normative.
o Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes. o Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes.
o Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning. o Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 B.4. 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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.22. 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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.23. 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 35 skipping to change at page 44, line 48
o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
o Clarify when private addresses can be used. o Clarify when private addresses can be used.
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.24. 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.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.25. 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.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.26. 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.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.27. 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.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.28. 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.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.29. 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
lispers.net lispers.net
 End of changes. 83 change blocks. 
284 lines changed or deleted 257 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/