draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-32.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-33.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: September 6, 2020 D. Meyer Expires: January 30, 2021 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
March 5, 2020 July 29, 2020
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-32 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-33
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 September 6, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 30, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 23
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 41
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 41
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 41 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 41
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 41 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 41 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 41 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 42
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 42
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 42
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 42 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 42
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 42 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 42 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 43
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 43
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 43 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 43
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 43 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 43 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 43 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 44 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 44 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 44 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 45 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 45
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 45 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 45 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 45 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46
B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 45 B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are
supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End- supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End-
systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume
that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system
where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed
packets and assist in delivering them across the network core packets and assist in delivering them across the network core
where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP
packets does not change. packets does not change.
o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See
details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". details in Section 4.2 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".
o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address
either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when
terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH),
TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such
a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new
prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an
intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an
inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an agreement to build such a inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an agreement to build such a
path exists). path exists).
In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two encapsulation loops, this document RECOMMENDS that a maximum of two
LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP
deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the
first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity
separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service
provider for Traffic Engineering purposes. provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.
Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology. Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
connected to the destination host. Another example, perhaps for a connected to the destination host. Another example, perhaps for a
VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
site's border router at the service provider attachment point. site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet
Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for
deployment in controlled, trusted environments, and are insecure for
use over the public Internet. In particular, on the public internet
xTRs:
o MUST set the N, L, E, and V bits in the LISP header (Section 5.1)
to zero.
o MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, as described in
Section 10 for Routing Locator Reachability. Instead MUST rely
solely on control-plane methods.
o MUST NOT use Gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning,
as described in Section 13 to update the EID-to-RLOC Mappings.
Instead relying solely on control-plane methods.
4.2. Packet Flow Sequence
This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow, This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow,
including also Control-Plane information as specified in including also Control-Plane information as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following
conditions: conditions:
o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not
was not using LISP. not using LISP.
o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
(RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.
o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
located anywhere in the LISP site. located anywhere in the LISP site.
o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the
skipping to change at page 17, line 23 skipping to change at page 18, line 9
MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are
encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information. encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information.
LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce
generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
required to generate different nonces when sending to different required to generate different nonces when sending to different
RLOCs. However, the same nonce can be used for a period of time RLOCs. The nonce is also used when the E-bit is set to request
when encapsulating to the same ETR. The nonce is also used when the nonce value to be echoed by the other side when packets are
the E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the returned. When the E-bit is clear but the N-bit is set, a remote
other side when packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but ITR is either echoing a previously requested echo-nonce or
the N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously providing a random nonce. See Section 10.1 for more details.
requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. See
Section 10.1 for more details.
LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the
'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to 'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry). value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
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
skipping to change at page 18, line 12 skipping to change at page 18, line 43
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 IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
field 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 IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class' copied from the inner-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header. field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header. Guidelines for
this can be found at [RFC2983].
o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
specified in [RFC6040]. specified in [RFC6040].
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
o The inner-header IPv4 '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
skipping to change at page 18, line 34 skipping to change at page 19, line 18
of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit'
value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can
cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the inner header to cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the inner header to
increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check
is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet
comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
field 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 IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class' copied from the outer-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header. field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header. Guidelines for
this can be found at [RFC2983].
o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special
treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion
as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that
copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header
even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is
RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior in RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior in
[RFC6040]. [RFC6040].
skipping to change at page 20, line 21 skipping to change at page 21, line 9
It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since
it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.
Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
also apply to a TE-ITR. also apply to a TE-ITR.
Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
also apply to a TE-ITR.
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows: follows:
1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header
lengths. lengths.
2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
skipping to change at page 21, line 24 skipping to change at page 22, line 15
is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation- is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-
Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message to the source with a value Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message to the source with a value
of S, where S is (L - H). of S, where S is (L - H).
When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU
issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.
This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. Additional
information about in-network MTU and fragmentation issues can be
found at [RFC4459].
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 An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows: follows, this solution can only be used with IPv4-encapsulated
packets:
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 IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1,
with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can exceeds what the core network can deliver, one of the
deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an intermediate routers on the path will send an an ICMPv4
ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message or an ICMPv4 Unreachable/ Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The
Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The ITR will ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is
parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is affected by affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new
the effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry.
value in the Map-Cache entry.
3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the 3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv4 ICMP EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv4 ICMP
Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source. The
message back to the source. The packet size advertised by the packet size advertised by the ITR in the ICMP message is the
ITR in the ICMP message is the effective MTU minus the LISP effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation length.
encapsulation length.
Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP
There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level. There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level.
For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping
addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization. addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization.
skipping to change at page 22, line 35 skipping to change at page 23, line 31
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 Participants within a LISP deployment must agree on the meaning of
Instance ID values. The source and destination EIDs MUST belong to Instance ID values. The source and destination EIDs MUST belong to
the same Instance ID. the same Instance ID.
Instance ID SHOULD NOT be used with overlapping IPv6 EID addresses.
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.
The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with
'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When 'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When
multiple RLOC have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how multiple RLOCs have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how
to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight' to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight'
represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the
maping entry. mapping entry.
The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
controls that are available: controls that are available:
o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use
one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection. one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection.
o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset
list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In
skipping to change at page 23, line 46 skipping to change at page 24, line 43
inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of
received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is
returned and can alternate using an outer-header source RLOC, returned and can alternate using an outer-header source RLOC,
which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to
return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using
this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side
ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of zero. In ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of zero. In
addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed in data addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed in data
packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on Tunnel Routers can grow to be packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on Tunnel Routers can grow to be
very large. Gleaning has several important considerations. A very large. Gleaning has several important considerations. A
"gleaned" Map-Cache entry is only stored and used for a few "gleaned" Map-Cache entry is only stored and used for a
seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by RECOMMENDED period of 3 seconds, pending verification.
sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP Verification MUST be performed by sending a Map-Request to the
source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to source EID (the inner-header IP source address) of the received
this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map- encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is
Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID
time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When and is stored and used for the time indicated from the 'TTL' field
a verified Map- Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map- Cache entry is
occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that
the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the verified
SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be entry. This "gleaning" mechanism MUST NOT be used over the public
used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16 for Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed
security issues regarding this mechanism. 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 37 skipping to change at page 26, line 34
packet will check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. packet will check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field.
When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will
refrain from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as refrain from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as
down. It will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding down. It will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding
Locator-Status-Bit returns to a value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are Locator-Status-Bit returns to a value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are
associated with a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a associated with a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a
Locator becomes unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds Locator becomes unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds
to that Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply to that Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply
will be set to zero for that particular EID-Prefix. 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 MUST 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 13.2) to prevent race conditions where Locator-Status-Bits (Section 13.2) to prevent race conditions where Locator-Status-Bits
are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than intended. Refer are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than intended. Refer
to Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. 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
skipping to change at page 27, line 19 skipping to change at page 28, line 19
echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD set the erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD set the
E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled
for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map-Reply for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map-Reply
message. message.
Many implementations default to not advertising they are echo-nonce Many implementations default to not advertising they are echo-nonce
capable in Map-Reply messages and so RLOC-probing tends to be used capable in Map-Reply messages and so RLOC-probing tends to be used
for RLOC reachability. for RLOC reachability.
The echo-nonce mechanism SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet The echo-nonce mechanism MUST NOT be used over the public Internet
and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to and MUST only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to
Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism.
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site
A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and
infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID- infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site. reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
skipping to change at page 28, line 46 skipping to change at page 29, line 46
suggested setting for the source port number computed by an ITR is a suggested setting for the source port number computed by an ITR is a
5-tuple hash function on the inner header, as described above. The 5-tuple hash function on the inner header, as described above. The
source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same
flow. flow.
Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation. encapsulation. In this scenario, when the outer header is IPv6, the
flow label MAY also be set following the procedures specified in
[RFC6438]. When the inner header is IPv6 then the flow label is not
zero, it MAY be used to compute the hash.
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
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
skipping to change at page 30, line 30 skipping to change at page 31, line 36
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 Map-Version requires that ETRs within the LISP site are synchronized
with respect to the Map-Version Number, EID-prefix and the set and 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 status (up/down) of the RLOCs. The use of Map-Versioning without
proper synzhronization may cause traffic disruption. The proper synchronization may cause traffic disruption. The
synchronization protocol is out-of-the-scope of this document, but synchronization protocol is out-of-the-scope of this document, but
MUST keep ETRs synchronized within a 1 minute window. MUST keep ETRs synchronized within a 1 minute window.
Map-Versioning SHOULD NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD Map-Versioning MUST 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
architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
skipping to change at page 32, line 51 skipping to change at page 34, line 8
reachable even when it may not be reachable. If the attack is reachable even when it may not be reachable. If the attack is
successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability status of the successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability status of the
ETR's RLOC until RLOC-probing detects the correct status. This time ETR's RLOC until RLOC-probing detects the correct status. This time
frame is on the order of 10s of seconds. This specific attack can be frame is on the order of 10s of seconds. This specific attack can be
mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the network by deploying mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the network by deploying
uRPF BCP 38 [RFC2827]. In addition and in order to exploit this uRPF BCP 38 [RFC2827]. In addition and in order to exploit this
vulnerability, the off-path attacker must send echo-nonce packets at vulnerability, the off-path attacker must send echo-nonce packets at
high rate. If the nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it high rate. If the nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it
can protect itself from erroneous reachability attacks. can protect itself from erroneous reachability attacks.
A LISP-specific uRPF check is also possible. When decapsulating, an
ETR can check that the source EID and RLOC are valid EID-to-RLOC
mappings by checking the Mapping System.
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 MUST 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 where Locator- coupled with map-versioning to prevent race conditions where Locator-
Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than
intended. 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
skipping to change at page 35, line 16 skipping to change at page 36, line 25
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>. May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>. 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
skipping to change at page 37, line 10 skipping to change at page 38, line 24
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4459>.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
skipping to change at page 37, line 47 skipping to change at page 39, line 16
Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052, Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
[RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A
RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier
Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security
Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>.
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>. March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors. to the LISP authors.
A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
128 lines changed or deleted 159 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/