draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09.txt 
Network Working Group V. Fuller Network Working Group V. Fuller
Internet-Draft D. Farinacci Internet-Draft D. Farinacci
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: September 5, 2018 A. Cabellos (Ed.) Expires: September 19, 2018 A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
March 4, 2018 March 18, 2018
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the Control-Plane and Mapping Service for the This document describes the Control-Plane and Mapping Service for the
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), implemented by two new types Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), implemented by two new types
of LISP-speaking devices -- the LISP Map-Resolver and LISP Map-Server of LISP-speaking devices -- the LISP Map-Resolver and LISP Map-Server
-- that provides a simplified "front end" for one or more Endpoint ID -- that provides a simplified "front end" for one or more Endpoint ID
to Routing Locator mapping databases. to Routing Locator mapping databases.
By using this control-plane service interface and communicating with By using this Control-Plane service interface and communicating with
Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and
Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of
mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different
database designs. Since these devices implement the "edge" of the database designs. Since these devices implement the "edge" of the
LISP infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable Internet end LISP Control-Plane infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable
sites, and comprise the bulk of LISP-speaking devices, reducing their Internet end sites, and comprising the bulk of LISP-speaking devices,
implementation and operational complexity should also reduce the reducing their implementation and operational complexity should also
overall cost and effort of deploying LISP. reduce the overall cost and effort of deploying LISP.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 5, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 19, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 33 8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 33
8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.4.1. Anycast Map-Resolver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8.4.1. Anycast Map-Resolver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 10.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 10.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 10.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 10.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 10.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 44
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 44 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 44
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 44 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 45
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 45
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 45 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 45 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 45 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46
B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 45 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 47
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] and The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies an architecture and mechanism [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies an architecture and mechanism
for replacing the addresses currently used by IP with two separate for dynamic tunnelling by logically separating the addresses
name spaces: Endpoint IDs (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing currently used by IP in two separate name spaces: Endpoint IDs
Locators (RLOCs), used on the transit networks that make up the (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing Locators (RLOCs), used on the
Internet infrastructure. To achieve this separation, LISP defines transit networks that make up the Internet infrastructure. To
protocol mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs. In addition, achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol mechanisms for mapping
LISP assumes the existence of a database to store and propagate those from EIDs to RLOCs. In addition, LISP assumes the existence of a
mappings globally. Several such databases have been proposed; among database to store and propagate those mappings globally. Several
them are the Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP such databases have been proposed; among them are the Content
(LISP-CONS) [LISP-CONS], LISP-NERD (a Not-so-novel EID-to-RLOC distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP-NERD (a Not-so-novel
Database) [RFC6837], LISP Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT) EID-to-RLOC Database) [RFC6837], LISP Alternative Logical Topology
[RFC6836], and LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT) [RFC8111]. (LISP-ALT) [RFC6836], and LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)
[RFC8111].
The LISP Mapping Service defines two new types of LISP-speaking The LISP Mapping Service defines two new types of LISP-speaking
devices: the Map-Resolver, which accepts Map-Requests from an Ingress devices: the Map-Resolver, which accepts Map-Requests from an Ingress
Tunnel Router (ITR) and "resolves" the EID-to-RLOC mapping using a Tunnel Router (ITR) and "resolves" the EID-to-RLOC mapping using a
mapping database; and the Map-Server, which learns authoritative EID- mapping database; and the Map-Server, which learns authoritative EID-
to-RLOC mappings from an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) and publishes to-RLOC mappings from an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) and publishes
them in a database. them in a database.
This LISP Control-Plane Mapping Service can be used by many different This LISP Control-Plane Mapping Service can be used by many different
encapsulation-based or translation-based data-planes which include encapsulation-based or translation-based Data-Planes which include
but are not limited to the ones defined in LISP RFC 6830bis but are not limited to the ones defined in LISP RFC 6830bis
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], LISP-GPE [I-D.lewis-lisp-gpe], VXLAN [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], LISP-GPE [I-D.lewis-lisp-gpe], VXLAN
[RFC7348], and VXLAN-GPE [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe]. [RFC7348], VXLAN-GPE [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe], and ILA
[I-D.herbert-intarea-ila].
Conceptually, LISP Map-Servers share some of the same basic Conceptually, LISP Map-Servers share some of the same basic
configuration and maintenance properties as Domain Name System (DNS) configuration and maintenance properties as Domain Name System (DNS)
[RFC1035] servers; likewise, Map-Resolvers are conceptually similar [RFC1035] servers; likewise, Map-Resolvers are conceptually similar
to DNS caching resolvers. With this in mind, this specification to DNS caching resolvers. With this in mind, this specification
borrows familiar terminology (resolver and server) from the DNS borrows familiar terminology (resolver and server) from the DNS
specifications. specifications.
Note that while this document assumes a LISP+ALT database mapping Note that while this document assumes a LISP-ALT database mapping
infrastructure to illustrate certain aspects of Map-Server and Map- infrastructure to illustrate certain aspects of Map-Server and Map-
Resolver operation, the Mapping Service interface can (and likely Resolver operation, the Mapping Service interface can (and likely
will) be used by ITRs and ETRs to access other mapping database will) be used by ITRs and ETRs to access other mapping database
systems as the LISP infrastructure evolves. systems as the LISP infrastructure evolves.
The LISP Mapping Service is an important component of the LISP The LISP Mapping Service is an important component of the LISP
toolset. Issues and concerns about the deployment of LISP for toolset. Issues and concerns about the deployment of LISP for
Internet traffic are discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Internet traffic are discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis],
[RFC7215], and [LISP-OAM].
2. Requirements Notation 2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
Map-Server: A network infrastructure component that learns of EID- Map-Server: A network infrastructure component that learns of EID-
Prefix mapping entries from an ETR, via the registration mechanism Prefix mapping entries from an ETR, via the registration mechanism
described below, or some other authoritative source if one exists. described below, or some other authoritative source if one exists.
A Map-Server publishes these EID-Prefixes in a mapping database. A Map-Server publishes these EID-Prefixes in a mapping database.
Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request is a control-plane message to query Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request is a Control-Plane message to query
the mapping system to resolve an EID. A LISP Map-Request can also the mapping system to resolve an EID. A LISP Map-Request can also
be sent to an RLOC to test for reachability and to exchange be sent to an RLOC to test for reachability and to exchange
security keys between an encapsulator and a decapsulator. This security keys between an encapsulator and a decapsulator. This
type of Map-Request is also known as an RLOC-Probe Request. type of Map-Request is also known as an RLOC-Probe Request.
Map-Reply: A LISP Map-Reply is a control-plane message returned in Map-Reply: A LISP Map-Reply is a Control-Plane message returned in
response to a Map-Request sent to the mapping system when response to a Map-Request sent to the mapping system when
resolving an EID. A LISP Map-Reply can also be returned by a resolving an EID. A LISP Map-Reply can also be returned by a
decapsulator in response to a Map-Request sent by an encapsulator decapsulator in response to a Map-Request sent by an encapsulator
to test for reachability. This type of Map-Reply is known as a to test for reachability. This type of Map-Reply is known as a
RLOC-Probe Reply. RLOC-Probe Reply.
Encapsulated Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request carried within an Encapsulated Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request carried within an
Encapsulated Control Message (ECM), which has an additional LISP Encapsulated Control Message (ECM), which has an additional LISP
header prepended. Sent to UDP destination port 4342. The "outer" header prepended. Sent to UDP destination port 4342. The "outer"
addresses are routable IP addresses, also known as RLOCs. Used by addresses are routable IP addresses, also known as RLOCs. Used by
skipping to change at page 5, line 51 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
A Map-Server is a device that publishes EID-Prefixes in a LISP A Map-Server is a device that publishes EID-Prefixes in a LISP
mapping database on behalf of a set of ETRs. When it receives a Map mapping database on behalf of a set of ETRs. When it receives a Map
Request (typically from an ITR), it consults the mapping database to Request (typically from an ITR), it consults the mapping database to
find an ETR that can answer with the set of RLOCs for an EID-Prefix. find an ETR that can answer with the set of RLOCs for an EID-Prefix.
To publish its EID-Prefixes, an ETR periodically sends Map-Register To publish its EID-Prefixes, an ETR periodically sends Map-Register
messages to the Map-Server. A Map-Register message contains a list messages to the Map-Server. A Map-Register message contains a list
of EID-Prefixes plus a set of RLOCs that can be used to reach the of EID-Prefixes plus a set of RLOCs that can be used to reach the
ETRs. ETRs.
When LISP+ALT is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server connects When LISP-ALT [RFC6836] is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server
to the ALT network and acts as a "last-hop" ALT-Router. Intermediate connects to the ALT network and acts as a "last-hop" ALT-Router.
ALT-Routers forward Map-Requests to the Map-Server that advertises a Intermediate ALT-Routers forward Map-Requests to the Map-Server that
particular EID-Prefix, and the Map-Server forwards them to the owning advertises a particular EID-Prefix, and the Map-Server forwards them
ETR, which responds with Map-Reply messages. to the owning ETR, which responds with Map-Reply messages.
When LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server When LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server
sends the final Map-Referral messages from the Delegated Database sends the final Map-Referral messages from the Delegated Database
Tree. Tree.
A Map-Resolver receives Encapsulated Map-Requests from its client A Map-Resolver receives Encapsulated Map-Requests from its client
ITRs and uses a mapping database system to find the appropriate ETR ITRs and uses a mapping database system to find the appropriate ETR
to answer those requests. On a LISP+ALT network, a Map-Resolver acts to answer those requests. On a LISP-ALT network, a Map-Resolver acts
as a "first-hop" ALT-Router. It has Generic Routing Encapsulation as a "first-hop" ALT-Router. It has Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE) tunnels configured to other ALT-Routers and uses BGP to learn (GRE) tunnels configured to other ALT-Routers and uses BGP to learn
paths to ETRs for different prefixes in the LISP+ALT database. The paths to ETRs for different prefixes in the LISP-ALT database. The
Map-Resolver uses this path information to forward Map-Requests over Map-Resolver uses this path information to forward Map-Requests over
the ALT to the correct ETRs. On a LISP-DDT network [RFC8111], a Map- the ALT to the correct ETRs. On a LISP-DDT network [RFC8111], a Map-
Resolver maintains a referral-cache and acts as a "first-hop" DDT- Resolver maintains a referral-cache and acts as a "first-hop" DDT-
node. The Map-Resolver uses the referral information to forward Map- node. The Map-Resolver uses the referral information to forward Map-
Requests. Requests.
Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache
responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management
will need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and will need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and
practical. As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will operate only in practical. As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will operate only in
a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map
Requests received from ITRs. Any specification of caching Requests received from ITRs. Any specification of caching
functionality is left for future work. functionality is out of scope for this document.
Note that a single device can implement the functions of both a Map- Note that a single device can implement the functions of both a Map-
Server and a Map-Resolver, and in many cases the functions will be Server and a Map-Resolver, and in many cases the functions will be
co-located in that way. Also, there can be ALT-only nodes and DDT- co-located in that way. Also, there can be ALT-only nodes and DDT-
only nodes, when LISP+ALT and LISP-DDT are used, respectively, to only nodes, when LISP-ALT and LISP-DDT are used, respectively, to
connect Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers together to make up the Mapping connecting Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers together to make up the
System. Mapping System.
Detailed descriptions of the LISP packet types referenced by this
document may be found in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
5. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats 5. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats
The following UDP packet formats are used by the LISP control plane. The following UDP packet formats are used by the LISP control plane.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 8, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 31
source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet. source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet.
Implementations MUST be prepared to accept packets when either the Implementations MUST be prepared to accept packets when either the
source port or destination UDP port is set to 4342 due to NATs source port or destination UDP port is set to 4342 due to NATs
changing port number values. changing port number values.
The 'UDP Length' field will reflect the length of the UDP header and The 'UDP Length' field will reflect the length of the UDP header and
the LISP Message payload. the LISP Message payload.
The UDP checksum is computed and set to non-zero for all messages The UDP checksum is computed and set to non-zero for all messages
sent to or from port 4342. It MUST be checked on receipt, and if the sent to or from port 4342. It MUST be checked on receipt, and if the
checksum fails, the control message MUST be dropped. checksum fails, the control message MUST be dropped [RFC1071].
The format of control messages includes the UDP header so the The format of control messages includes the UDP header so the
checksum and length fields can be used to protect and delimit message checksum and length fields can be used to protect and delimit message
boundaries. boundaries.
5.1. LISP Control Packet Type Allocations 5.1. LISP Control Packet Type Allocations
This section defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes This section defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes
for IANA the LISP Type codes assigned by this document. For for IANA the LISP Type codes assigned by this document. For
completeness, this document references the LISP Shared Extension completeness, this document references the LISP Shared Extension
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
LISP Map-Register: 3 b'0011' LISP Map-Register: 3 b'0011'
LISP Map-Notify: 4 b'0100' LISP Map-Notify: 4 b'0100'
LISP Map-Notify-Ack: 5 b'0101' LISP Map-Notify-Ack: 5 b'0101'
LISP Map-Referral: 6 b'0110' LISP Map-Referral: 6 b'0110'
LISP Encapsulated Control Message: 8 b'1000' LISP Encapsulated Control Message: 8 b'1000'
Not Assigned 9-14 b'1001'- b'1110' Not Assigned 9-14 b'1001'- b'1110'
LISP Shared Extension Message: 15 b'1111' [RFC8113] LISP Shared Extension Message: 15 b'1111' [RFC8113]
Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
procedures in [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP procedures in [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP
packet type MAY indicate a preferred value in Section 10.4. packet type MAY indicate a preferred value.
Protocol designers experimenting with new message formats SHOULD use Protocol designers experimenting with new message formats SHOULD use
the LISP Shared Extension Message Type and request a [RFC8113] sub- the LISP Shared Extension Message Type and request a [RFC8113] sub-
type assignment. type assignment.
All LISP control-plane messages use Address Family Identifiers (AFI) All LISP Control-Plane messages use Address Family Identifiers (AFI)
[AFI] or LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] formats to [AFI] or LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] formats to
encode either fixed or variable length addresses. This includes encode either fixed or variable length addresses. This includes
explicit fields in each control message or part of EID-records or explicit fields in each control message or part of EID-records or
RLOC-records in commonly formatted messages. RLOC-records in commonly formatted messages.
The LISP control-plane describes how other data-planes can encode The LISP control-plane describes how other data-planes can encode
messages to support the SMR and RLOC-probing procedures of the LISP messages to support the SMR and RLOC-probing procedures.
data-plane defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. This control-plane
specification itself does not offer such functionality and other
data-planes can use their own mechanisms that do not rely on the LISP
control-plane.
5.2. Map-Request Message Format 5.2. Map-Request Message Format
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|m|I| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count | |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|m|I| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 10, line 47 skipping to change at page 10, line 47
destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping
database system. database system.
M: This is the map-data-present bit. When set, it indicates that a M: This is the map-data-present bit. When set, it indicates that a
Map-Reply Record segment is included in the Map-Request. Map-Reply Record segment is included in the Map-Request.
P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that a Map-Request SHOULD P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that a Map-Request SHOULD
be treated as a Locator reachability probe. The receiver SHOULD be treated as a Locator reachability probe. The receiver SHOULD
respond with a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set, indicating that respond with a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set, indicating that
the Map-Reply is a Locator reachability probe reply, with the the Map-Reply is a Locator reachability probe reply, with the
nonce copied from the Map-Request. See RLOC-Probing nonce copied from the Map-Request. See RLOC-Probing Section 7.1
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for more details. for more details.
S: This is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See Solicit-Map- S: This is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See Solicit-Map-
Request (SMRs) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for details. Request (SMRs) Section 6.1 for details.
p: This is the PITR bit. This bit is set to 1 when a PITR sends a p: This is the PITR bit. This bit is set to 1 when a PITR sends a
Map-Request. Map-Request.
s: This is the SMR-invoked bit. This bit is set to 1 when an xTR is s: This is the SMR-invoked bit. This bit is set to 1 when an xTR is
sending a Map-Request in response to a received SMR-based Map- sending a Map-Request in response to a received SMR-based Map-
Request. Request.
m: This is the LISP mobile-node m-bit. This bit is set by xTRs that m: This is the LISP mobile-node m-bit. This bit is set by xTRs that
operate as a mobile node as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]. operate as a mobile node as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn].
I: This is the xTR-ID bit. When this bit is set, what is appended to I: This is the xTR-ID bit. When this bit is set, what is appended to
the Map-Request is a 128-bit xTR router-ID. See LISP PubSub usage the Map-Request is a 128-bit xTR router-ID. See LISP PubSub usage
procedures in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub] for details. procedures in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub] for details.
Rsvd: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on Rsvd: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on
receipt. receipt.
L: This is the local-xtr bit. It is used by an xTR in a LISP site to L: This is the local-xtr bit. It is used by an xTR in a LISP site to
tell other xTRs in the same site that it is local to the site. tell other xTRs in the same site that it is part of the RLOC-set
That is, that it is part of the RLOC-set for the LISP site. for the LISP site. The L-bit is set to 1 when the RLOC is the
sender's IP address.
D: This is the dont-map-reply bit. It is used in the SMR procedure D: This is the dont-map-reply bit. It is used in the SMR procedure
described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. When an xTR sends an SMR described in Section 6.1. When an xTR sends an SMR Map-Request
Map-Request message, it doesn't need a Map-Reply returned. When message, it doesn't need a Map-Reply returned. When this bit is
this bit is set, the receiver of the Map-Request does not return a set, the receiver of the Map-Request does not return a Map-Reply.
Map-Reply.
IRC: This 5-bit field is the ITR-RLOC Count, which encodes the IRC: This 5-bit field is the ITR-RLOC Count, which encodes the
additional number of ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC Address') fields additional number of ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC Address') fields
present in this message. At least one (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC- present in this message. At least one (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC-
Address) pair MUST be encoded. Multiple 'ITR-RLOC Address' fields Address) pair MUST be encoded. Multiple 'ITR-RLOC Address' fields
are used, so a Map-Replier can select which destination address to are used, so a Map-Replier can select which destination address to
use for a Map-Reply. The IRC value ranges from 0 to 31. For a use for a Map-Reply. The IRC value ranges from 0 to 31. For a
value of 0, there is 1 ITR-RLOC address encoded; for a value of 1, value of 0, there is 1 ITR-RLOC address encoded; for a value of 1,
there are 2 ITR-RLOC addresses encoded, and so on up to 31, which there are 2 ITR-RLOC addresses encoded, and so on up to 31, which
encodes a total of 32 ITR-RLOC addresses. encodes a total of 32 ITR-RLOC addresses.
skipping to change at page 13, line 46 skipping to change at page 13, line 46
ETR. Details on Encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be ETR. Details on Encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be
found in Section 5.8. found in Section 5.8.
Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is RECOMMENDED that a Map- Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is RECOMMENDED that a Map-
Request for the same EID-Prefix be sent no more than once per second. Request for the same EID-Prefix be sent no more than once per second.
An ITR that is configured with mapping database information (i.e., it An ITR that is configured with mapping database information (i.e., it
is also an ETR) MAY optionally include those mappings in a Map- is also an ETR) MAY optionally include those mappings in a Map-
Request. When an ETR configured to accept and verify such Request. When an ETR configured to accept and verify such
"piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request and it does "piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request and it does
not have this mapping in the map-cache, it MAY originate a "verifying not have this mapping in the Map-Cache, it MAY originate a "verifying
Map-Request", addressed to the map-requesting ITR and the ETR MAY add Map-Request", addressed to the map-requesting ITR and the ETR MAY add
a Map-Cache entry. If the ETR has a Map-Cache entry that matches the a Map-Cache entry. If the ETR has a Map-Cache entry that matches the
"piggybacked" EID and the RLOC is in the Locator-Set for the entry, "piggybacked" EID and the RLOC is in the Locator-Set for the entry,
then it MAY send the "verifying Map-Request" directly to the then it MAY send the "verifying Map-Request" directly to the
originating Map-Request source. If the RLOC is not in the Locator- originating Map-Request source. If the RLOC is not in the Locator-
Set, then the ETR MUST send the "verifying Map-Request" to the Set, then the ETR MUST send the "verifying Map-Request" to the
"piggybacked" EID. Doing this forces the "verifying Map-Request" to "piggybacked" EID. Doing this forces the "verifying Map-Request" to
go through the mapping database system to reach the authoritative go through the mapping database system to reach the authoritative
source of information about that EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing source of information about that EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing
in the "piggybacked" mapping data. in the "piggybacked" mapping data.
skipping to change at page 15, line 38 skipping to change at page 15, line 38
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 2 (Map-Reply) Type: 2 (Map-Reply)
P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that the Map-Reply is in P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that the Map-Reply is in
response to a Locator reachability probe Map-Request. The 'Nonce' response to a Locator reachability probe Map-Request. The 'Nonce'
field MUST contain a copy of the nonce value from the original field MUST contain a copy of the nonce value from the original
Map-Request. See RLOC-probing [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for more Map-Request. See RLOC-probing Section 7.1 for more details. When
details. the probe-bit is set to 1 in a Map-Reply message, the A-bit in
each EID-record included in the message MUST be set to 1.
E: This bit indicates that the ETR that sends this Map-Reply message E: This bit indicates that the ETR that sends this Map-Reply message
is advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce Locator is advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce Locator
reachability algorithm. See Echo-Nonce [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] reachability algorithm. See Echo-Nonce [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
for more details. for more details.
S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1, the following S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1, the following
authentication information will be appended to the end of the Map- authentication information will be appended to the end of the Map-
Reply. The details of signing a Map-Reply message can be found in Reply. The details of signing a Map-Reply message can be found in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].
skipping to change at page 16, line 19 skipping to change at page 16, line 19
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be
ignored on receipt. ignored on receipt.
Record Count: This is the number of records in this reply message. Record Count: This is the number of records in this reply message.
A record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled A record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled
'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record
Count. Count.
Nonce: This is a 24-bit value set in a Data-Probe packet, or a Nonce: This is a 24-bit value set in a Data-Probe
64-bit value from the Map-Request is echoed in this 'Nonce' field [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] or a 64-bit value from the Map-Request
of the Map-Reply. When a 24-bit value is supplied, it resides in is echoed in this 'Nonce' field of the Map-Reply. When a 24-bit
the low-order 64 bits of the 'Nonce' field. value is supplied, it resides in the low-order 64 bits of the
'Nonce' field.
Record TTL: This is the time in minutes the recipient of the Map- Record TTL: This is the time in minutes the recipient of the Map-
Reply will store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry SHOULD Reply will store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry MUST be
be removed from the cache immediately. If the value is removed from the cache immediately. If the value is 0xffffffff,
0xffffffff, the recipient can decide locally how long to store the the recipient can decide locally how long to store the mapping.
mapping.
Locator Count: This is the number of Locator entries. A Locator Locator Count: This is the number of Locator entries. A Locator
entry comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The Locator count entry comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The Locator count
can be 0, indicating that there are no Locators for the EID- can be 0, indicating that there are no Locators for the EID-
Prefix. Prefix.
EID mask-len: This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix. EID mask-len: This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix.
ACT: This 3-bit field describes Negative Map-Reply actions. In any ACT: This 3-bit field describes Negative Map-Reply actions. In any
other message type, these bits are set to 0 and ignored on other message type, these bits are set to 0 and ignored on
receipt. These bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field receipt. These bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field
is set to 0. The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply is set to 0. The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply
messages. The actions defined are used by an ITR or PITR when a messages. The actions defined are used by an ITR or PITR when a
destination EID matches a negative Map-Cache entry. Unassigned destination EID matches a negative Map-Cache entry. Unassigned
values SHOULD cause a Map-Cache entry to be created, and when values SHOULD cause a Map-Cache entry to be created, and when
packets match this negative cache entry, they will be dropped. packets match this negative cache entry, they will be dropped.
The current assigned values are: The current assigned values are:
(0) No-Action: The map-cache is kept alive, and no packet (0) No-Action: The Map-Cache is kept alive, and no packet
encapsulation occurs. encapsulation occurs.
(1) Natively-Forward: The packet is not encapsulated or dropped (1) Natively-Forward: The packet is not encapsulated or dropped
but natively forwarded. but natively forwarded.
(2) Send-Map-Request: The packet invokes sending a Map-Request. (2) Send-Map-Request: The packet invokes sending a Map-Request.
(3) Drop/No-Reason: A packet that matches this map-cache entry is (3) Drop/No-Reason: A packet that matches this Map-Cache entry is
dropped. An ICMP Destination Unreachable message SHOULD be dropped. An ICMP Destination Unreachable message SHOULD be
sent. sent.
(4) Drop/Policy-Denied: A packet that matches this map-cache (4) Drop/Policy-Denied: A packet that matches this Map-Cache
entry is dropped. The reason for the Drop action is that a entry is dropped. The reason for the Drop action is that a
Map-Request for the target-EID is being policy denied by Map-Request for the target-EID is being policy denied by
either an xTR or the mapping system. either an xTR or the mapping system.
(5) Drop/Authentication-Failure: A packet that matches this map- (5) Drop/Authentication-Failure: A packet that matches this Map-
cache entry is dropped. The reason for the Drop action is Cache entry is dropped. The reason for the Drop action is
that a Map-Request for the target-EID fails an authentication that a Map-Request for the target-EID fails an authentication
verification-check by either an xTR or the mapping system. verification-check by either an xTR or the mapping system.
A: The Authoritative bit, when sent, is always set to 1 by an ETR. A: The Authoritative bit, when sent, is always set to 1 by an ETR.
When a Map-Server is proxy Map-Replying for a LISP site, the When a Map-Server is proxy Map-Replying for a LISP site, the
Authoritative bit is set to 0. This indicates to requesting ITRs Authoritative bit is set to 0. This indicates to requesting ITRs
that the Map-Reply was not originated by a LISP node managed at that the Map-Reply was not originated by a LISP node managed at
the site that owns the EID-Prefix. the site that owns the EID-Prefix.
Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value is non-zero, the Map- Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value is non-zero, the Map-
Reply sender is informing the ITR what the version number is for Reply sender is informing the ITR what the version number is for
the EID record contained in the Map-Reply. The ETR can allocate the EID record contained in the Map-Reply. The ETR can allocate
this number internally but MUST coordinate this value with other this number internally but MUST coordinate this value with other
ETRs for the site. When this value is 0, there is no versioning ETRs for the site. When this value is 0, there is no versioning
information conveyed. The Map-Version Number can be included in information conveyed. The Map-Version Number can be included in
Map-Request and Map-Register messages. See Map-Versioning Map-Request and Map-Register messages. See Map-Versioning
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for more details. [RFC6834] for more details.
EID-Prefix-AFI: Address family of the EID-Prefix according to [AFI] EID-Prefix-AFI: Address family of the EID-Prefix according to [AFI]
and [RFC8060]. and [RFC8060].
EID-Prefix: This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and EID-Prefix: This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and
16 octets for an IPv6 address family. 16 octets for an IPv6 address family.
Priority: Each RLOC is assigned a unicast Priority. Lower values Priority: Each RLOC is assigned a unicast Priority. Lower values
are more preferable. When multiple RLOCs have the same Priority, are more preferable. When multiple RLOCs have the same Priority,
they MAY be used in a load-split fashion. A value of 255 means they MAY be used in a load-split fashion. A value of 255 means
skipping to change at page 19, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
that the Locator is reachable. The p-bit is set for a single that the Locator is reachable. The p-bit is set for a single
Locator in the same Locator-Set. If an implementation sets more Locator in the same Locator-Set. If an implementation sets more
than one p-bit erroneously, the receiver of the Map-Reply MUST than one p-bit erroneously, the receiver of the Map-Reply MUST
select the first Locator. The p-bit MUST NOT be set for Locator- select the first Locator. The p-bit MUST NOT be set for Locator-
Set records sent in Map-Request and Map-Register messages. Set records sent in Map-Request and Map-Register messages.
R: This is set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the R: This is set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the
Locator in the Locator data record. This receiver MAY find this Locator in the Locator data record. This receiver MAY find this
useful to know if the Locator is up but not necessarily reachable useful to know if the Locator is up but not necessarily reachable
from the receiver's point of view. See also EID-Reachability from the receiver's point of view. See also EID-Reachability
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for another way the R-bit MAY be used. Section 7.1 for another way the R-bit MAY be used.
Locator: This is an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the 'Loc- Locator: This is an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the 'Loc-
AFI' field) assigned to an ETR. Note that the destination RLOC AFI' field) assigned to an ETR. Note that the destination RLOC
address MAY be an anycast address. A source RLOC can be an address MAY be an anycast address. A source RLOC can be an
anycast address as well. The source or destination RLOC MUST NOT anycast address as well. The source or destination RLOC MUST NOT
be the broadcast address (255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast be the broadcast address (255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast
address known to the router) and MUST NOT be a link-local address known to the router) and MUST NOT be a link-local
multicast address. The source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast multicast address. The source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast
address. The destination RLOC SHOULD be a multicast address if it address. The destination RLOC SHOULD be a multicast address if it
is being mapped from a multicast destination EID. is being mapped from a multicast destination EID.
5.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message 5.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message
A Map-Reply returns an EID-Prefix with a prefix length that is less A Map-Reply returns an EID-Prefix with a prefix length that is less
than or equal to the EID being requested. The EID being requested is than or equal to the EID being requested. The EID being requested is
either from the destination field of an IP header of a Data-Probe or either from the destination field of an IP header of a Data-Probe or
the EID record of a Map-Request. The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are the EID record of a Map-Request. The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are
routable IP addresses of all ETRs for the LISP site. Each RLOC routable IP addresses of all ETRs for the LISP site. Each RLOC
conveys status reachability but does not convey path reachability conveys status reachability but does not convey path reachability
from a requester's perspective. Separate testing of path from a requester's perspective. Separate testing of path
reachability is required. See RLOC-reachability reachability is required. See RLOC-reachability Section 7.1 for
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for details. details.
Note that a Map-Reply MAY contain different EID-Prefix granularity Note that a Map-Reply MAY contain different EID-Prefix granularity
(prefix + length) than the Map-Request that triggers it. This might (prefix + length) than the Map-Request that triggers it. This might
occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned by an occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned by an
earlier Map-Reply. In such a case, the requester updates its cache earlier Map-Reply. In such a case, the requester updates its cache
with the new prefix information and granularity. For example, a with the new prefix information and granularity. For example, a
requester with two cached EID-Prefixes that are covered by a Map- requester with two cached EID-Prefixes that are covered by a Map-
Reply containing one less-specific prefix replaces the entry with the Reply containing one less-specific prefix replaces the entry with the
less-specific EID-Prefix. Note that the reverse, replacement of one less-specific EID-Prefix. Note that the reverse, replacement of one
less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can also less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can also
skipping to change at page 20, line 26 skipping to change at page 20, line 26
10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24. 10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24.
Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but
only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above
10.0.0.0/8 was not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) for the 10.0.0.0/8 was not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) for the
matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID. When more than one EID- matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID. When more than one EID-
Prefix is returned, all SHOULD use the same Time to Live value so Prefix is returned, all SHOULD use the same Time to Live value so
they can all time out at the same time. When a more-specific EID- they can all time out at the same time. When a more-specific EID-
Prefix is received later, its Time to Live value in the Map-Reply Prefix is received later, its Time to Live value in the Map-Reply
record can be stored even when other less-specific entries exist. record can be stored even when other less-specific entries exist.
When a less-specific EID-Prefix is received later, its map-cache When a less-specific EID-Prefix is received later, its Map-Cache
expiration time SHOULD be set to the minimum expiration time of any expiration time SHOULD be set to the minimum expiration time of any
more-specific EID-Prefix in the map-cache. This is done so the more-specific EID-Prefix in the Map-Cache. This is done so the
integrity of the EID-Prefix set is wholly maintained and so no more- integrity of the EID-Prefix set is wholly maintained and so no more-
specific entries are removed from the map-cache while keeping less- specific entries are removed from the Map-Cache while keeping less-
specific entries. specific entries.
Map-Replies SHOULD be sent for an EID-Prefix no more often than once Map-Replies SHOULD be sent for an EID-Prefix no more often than once
per second to the same requesting router. For scalability, it is per second to the same requesting router. For scalability, it is
expected that aggregation of EID addresses into EID-Prefixes will expected that aggregation of EID addresses into EID-Prefixes will
allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for the EID addresses in the allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for the EID addresses in the
prefix range, thereby reducing the number of Map-Request messages. prefix range, thereby reducing the number of Map-Request messages.
Map-Reply records can have an empty Locator-Set. A Negative Map- Map-Reply records can have an empty Locator-Set. A Negative Map-
Reply is a Map-Reply with an empty Locator-Set. Negative Map-Replies Reply is a Map-Reply with an empty Locator-Set. Negative Map-Replies
skipping to change at page 24, line 7 skipping to change at page 24, line 7
is not currently used for any security function but MAY be in the is not currently used for any security function but MAY be in the
future as part of an anti-replay solution. future as part of an anti-replay solution.
Key ID: This is a configured key-id value that corresponds to a Key ID: This is a configured key-id value that corresponds to a
shared-secret password that is used to authenticate the sender. shared-secret password that is used to authenticate the sender.
Multiple shared-secrets can be used to roll over keys in a non- Multiple shared-secrets can be used to roll over keys in a non-
disruptive way. disruptive way.
Algorithm ID: This is the configured Message Authentication Code Algorithm ID: This is the configured Message Authentication Code
(MAC) algorithm value used for the authentication function. See (MAC) algorithm value used for the authentication function. See
Algorithm ID Numbers in the Section 10.4 for codepoint Algorithm ID Numbers in the Section 10.5 for codepoint
assignments. assignments.
Authentication Data Length: This is the length in octets of the Authentication Data Length: This is the length in octets of the
'Authentication Data' field that follows this field. The length 'Authentication Data' field that follows this field. The length
of the 'Authentication Data' field is dependent on the MAC of the 'Authentication Data' field is dependent on the MAC
algorithm used. The length field allows a device that doesn't algorithm used. The length field allows a device that doesn't
know the MAC algorithm to correctly parse the packet. know the MAC algorithm to correctly parse the packet.
Authentication Data: This is the message digest used from the output Authentication Data: This is the message digest used from the output
of the MAC algorithm. The entire Map-Register payload is of the MAC algorithm. The entire Map-Register payload is
authenticated with this field preset to 0. After the MAC is authenticated with this field preset to 0. After the MAC is
computed, it is placed in this field. Implementations of this computed, it is placed in this field. Implementations of this
specification MUST include support for HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2404], specification MUST include support for HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2404],
and support for HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC4868] is RECOMMENDED. and support for HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC4868] is RECOMMENDED.
The definition of the rest of the Map-Register can be found in The definition of the rest of the Map-Register can be found in EID-
Section 5.4. record description in Section 5.4.
5.7. Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format 5.7. Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format
This section specifies the encoding format for the Map-Notify and This section specifies the encoding format for the Map-Notify and
Map-Notify-Ack messages. The messages are sent inside a UDP packet Map-Notify-Ack messages. The messages are sent inside a UDP packet
with source and destination UDP ports equal to 4342. with source and destination UDP ports equal to 4342.
The Map-Notify and Map-Notify-Ack message formats are: The Map-Notify and Map-Notify-Ack message formats are:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 27, line 39 skipping to change at page 27, line 39
control packet being encapsulated. When the control packet is control packet being encapsulated. When the control packet is
a Map-Request or Map-Register, the source port is selected by a Map-Request or Map-Register, the source port is selected by
the ITR/PITR and the destination port is 4342. When the the ITR/PITR and the destination port is 4342. When the
control packet is a Map-Reply, the source port is 4342 and the control packet is a Map-Reply, the source port is 4342 and the
destination port is assigned from the source port of the destination port is assigned from the source port of the
invoking Map-Request. Port number 4341 MUST NOT be assigned to invoking Map-Request. Port number 4341 MUST NOT be assigned to
either port. The checksum field MUST be non-zero. either port. The checksum field MUST be non-zero.
LCM: The format is one of the control message formats described in LCM: The format is one of the control message formats described in
this section. At this time, only Map-Request messages are this section. At this time, only Map-Request messages are
allowed to be control-plane (ECM) encapsulated. In the future, allowed to be Control-Plane (ECM) encapsulated. In the future,
PIM Join/Prune messages [RFC6831] might be allowed. PIM Join/Prune messages [RFC6831] might be allowed.
Encapsulating other types of LISP control messages is for Encapsulating other types of LISP control messages is for
further study. When Map-Requests are sent for RLOC-Probing further study. When Map-Requests are sent for RLOC-Probing
purposes (i.e., the probe-bit is set), they MUST NOT be sent purposes (i.e., the probe-bit is set), they MUST NOT be sent
inside Encapsulated Control Messages. inside Encapsulated Control Messages.
6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
In the LISP architecture ITRs/PITRs use a local map-cache to store In the LISP architecture ITRs/PITRs use a local Map-Cache to store
EID-to-RLOC mappings for forwarding. When an ETR updates a mapping a EID-to-RLOC mappings for forwarding. When an ETR updates a mapping a
mechanism is required to inform ITRs/PITRs that are using such mechanism is required to inform ITRs/PITRs that are using such
mappings. mappings.
The LISP data-plane defines several mechanism to update mappings The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanism to update mappings
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. This document specifies the Solicit-Map [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. This document specifies the Solicit-Map
Request (SMR), a control-plane push-based mechanism. An additional Request (SMR), a Control-Plane push-based mechanism. An additional
control-plane mechanism based on the Publish/subscribe paradigm is Control-Plane mechanism based on the Publish/subscribe paradigm is
specified in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub]. specified in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub].
6.1. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) 6.1. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)
Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site
where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for
Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update
the mappings they have cached. the mappings they have cached.
Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their
skipping to change at page 29, line 10 skipping to change at page 29, line 10
message or to the mapping database system. A newly allocated message or to the mapping database system. A newly allocated
random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one
copied from the SMR message. If the source Locator is the only copied from the SMR message. If the source Locator is the only
Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a
Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the
single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to
accept the Map-Request. accept the Map-Request.
3. The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a 3. The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a
Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. When Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. When
Map-Versioning as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] is Map-Versioning as described in [RFC6834] is used, an SMR sender
used, an SMR sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to- can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date database
date database mapping. mapping.
4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the 4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the
Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the
SMR-invoked Map-Request. The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate- SMR-invoked Map-Request. The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate-
limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion. limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion.
5. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record the fact 5. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record the fact
that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new
mapping data in the Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the mapping data in the Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the
Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets
skipping to change at page 29, line 40 skipping to change at page 29, line 40
Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map- Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map-
Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database
system. Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to system. Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to
reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the
authoritative source of the mapping data. authoritative source of the mapping data.
When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not
have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send
an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR
sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored
in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be in its Map-Cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be
sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs
until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to
obtain a Map-Cache entry. obtain a Map-Cache entry.
7. Routing Locator Reachability 7. Routing Locator Reachability
This document defines several control-plane mechanisms for This document defines several Control-Plane mechanisms for
determining RLOC reachability. Please note that additional data- determining RLOC reachability. Please note that additional Data-
plane reachability mechanisms are defined in Plane reachability mechanisms are defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
1. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host 1. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host
Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that
the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may
not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely.
Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices
in treating these conditions [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering]. in treating these conditions [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering].
2. When an ITR participates in the routing protocol that operates in 2. When an ITR participates in the routing protocol that operates in
skipping to change at page 32, line 21 skipping to change at page 32, line 21
8. Interactions with Other LISP Components 8. Interactions with Other LISP Components
8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution 8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution
An ITR is configured with one or more Map-Resolver addresses. These An ITR is configured with one or more Map-Resolver addresses. These
addresses are "Locators" (or RLOCs) and MUST be routable on the addresses are "Locators" (or RLOCs) and MUST be routable on the
underlying core network; they MUST NOT need to be resolved through underlying core network; they MUST NOT need to be resolved through
LISP EID-to-RLOC mapping, as that would introduce a circular LISP EID-to-RLOC mapping, as that would introduce a circular
dependency. When using a Map-Resolver, an ITR does not need to dependency. When using a Map-Resolver, an ITR does not need to
connect to any other database mapping system. In particular, the ITR connect to any other database mapping system. In particular, the ITR
need not connect to the LISP+ALT infrastructure or implement the BGP need not connect to the LISP-ALT infrastructure or implement the BGP
and GRE protocols that it uses. and GRE protocols that it uses.
An ITR sends an Encapsulated Map-Request to a configured Map-Resolver An ITR sends an Encapsulated Map-Request to a configured Map-Resolver
when it needs an EID-to-RLOC mapping that is not found in its local when it needs an EID-to-RLOC mapping that is not found in its local
map-cache. Using the Map-Resolver greatly reduces both the Map-Cache. Using the Map-Resolver greatly reduces both the
complexity of the ITR implementation and the costs associated with complexity of the ITR implementation and the costs associated with
its operation. its operation.
In response to an Encapsulated Map-Request, the ITR can expect one of In response to an Encapsulated Map-Request, the ITR can expect one of
the following: the following:
o An immediate Negative Map-Reply (with action code of "Natively- o An immediate Negative Map-Reply (with action code of "Natively-
Forward", 15-minute Time to Live (TTL)) from the Map-Resolver if Forward", 15-minute Time to Live (TTL)) from the Map-Resolver if
the Map-Resolver can determine that the requested EID does not the Map-Resolver can determine that the requested EID does not
exist. The ITR saves the EID-Prefix returned in the Map-Reply in exist. The ITR saves the EID-Prefix returned in the Map-Reply in
skipping to change at page 33, line 10 skipping to change at page 33, line 10
matches a non-delegated part of the authoritative EID-Prefix, then matches a non-delegated part of the authoritative EID-Prefix, then
it is not a LISP EID and a 15-minute TTL is returned. See it is not a LISP EID and a 15-minute TTL is returned. See
Section 8.2 for discussion of aggregate EID-Prefixes and details Section 8.2 for discussion of aggregate EID-Prefixes and details
of Map-Server EID-Prefix matching. of Map-Server EID-Prefix matching.
o A LISP Map-Reply from the ETR that owns the EID-to-RLOC mapping or o A LISP Map-Reply from the ETR that owns the EID-to-RLOC mapping or
possibly from a Map-Server answering on behalf of the ETR. See possibly from a Map-Server answering on behalf of the ETR. See
Section 8.4 for more details on Map-Resolver message processing. Section 8.4 for more details on Map-Resolver message processing.
Note that an ITR MAY be configured to both use a Map-Resolver and to Note that an ITR MAY be configured to both use a Map-Resolver and to
participate in a LISP+ALT logical network. In such a situation, the participate in a LISP-ALT logical network. In such a situation, the
ITR SHOULD send Map-Requests through the ALT network for any EID- ITR SHOULD send Map-Requests through the ALT network for any EID-
Prefix learned via ALT BGP. Such a configuration is expected to be Prefix learned via ALT BGP. Such a configuration is expected to be
very rare, since there is little benefit to using a Map-Resolver if very rare, since there is little benefit to using a Map-Resolver if
an ITR is already using LISP+ALT. There would be, for example, no an ITR is already using LISP-ALT. There would be, for example, no
need for such an ITR to send a Map-Request to a possibly non-existent need for such an ITR to send a Map-Request to a possibly non-existent
EID (and rely on Negative Map-Replies) if it can consult the ALT EID (and rely on Negative Map-Replies) if it can consult the ALT
database to verify that an EID-Prefix is present before sending that database to verify that an EID-Prefix is present before sending that
Map-Request. Map-Request.
8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration 8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration
An ETR publishes its EID-Prefixes on a Map-Server by sending LISP An ETR publishes its EID-Prefixes on a Map-Server by sending LISP
Map-Register messages. A Map-Register message includes Map-Register messages. A Map-Register message includes
authentication data, so prior to sending a Map-Register message, the authentication data, so prior to sending a Map-Register message, the
skipping to change at page 33, line 38 skipping to change at page 33, line 38
authoritative. Upon receipt of a Map-Register from an ETR, a Map- authoritative. Upon receipt of a Map-Register from an ETR, a Map-
Server accepts only EID-Prefixes that are configured for that ETR. Server accepts only EID-Prefixes that are configured for that ETR.
Failure to implement such a check would leave the mapping system Failure to implement such a check would leave the mapping system
vulnerable to trivial EID-Prefix hijacking attacks. As developers vulnerable to trivial EID-Prefix hijacking attacks. As developers
and operators gain experience with the mapping system, additional, and operators gain experience with the mapping system, additional,
stronger security measures MAY be added to the registration process. stronger security measures MAY be added to the registration process.
In addition to the set of EID-Prefixes defined for each ETR that MAY In addition to the set of EID-Prefixes defined for each ETR that MAY
register, a Map-Server is typically also configured with one or more register, a Map-Server is typically also configured with one or more
aggregate prefixes that define the part of the EID numbering space aggregate prefixes that define the part of the EID numbering space
assigned to it. When LISP+ALT is the database in use, aggregate EID- assigned to it. When LISP-ALT is the database in use, aggregate EID-
Prefixes are implemented as discard routes and advertised into ALT Prefixes are implemented as discard routes and advertised into ALT
BGP. The existence of aggregate EID-Prefixes in a Map-Server's BGP. The existence of aggregate EID-Prefixes in a Map-Server's
database means that it MAY receive Map Requests for EID-Prefixes that database means that it MAY receive Map Requests for EID-Prefixes that
match an aggregate but do not match a registered prefix; Section 8.3 match an aggregate but do not match a registered prefix; Section 8.3
describes how this is handled. describes how this is handled.
Map-Register messages are sent periodically from an ETR to a Map- Map-Register messages are sent periodically from an ETR to a Map-
Server with a suggested interval between messages of one minute. A Server with a suggested interval between messages of one minute. A
Map-Server SHOULD time out and remove an ETR's registration if it has Map-Server SHOULD time out and remove an ETR's registration if it has
not received a valid Map-Register message within the past not received a valid Map-Register message within the past
skipping to change at page 34, line 30 skipping to change at page 34, line 30
how quickly and how frequently a mapping database entry can be how quickly and how frequently a mapping database entry can be
updated. This MAY have implications for what sorts of mobility can updated. This MAY have implications for what sorts of mobility can
be supported directly by the mapping system; shorter registration be supported directly by the mapping system; shorter registration
intervals or other mechanisms might be needed to support faster intervals or other mechanisms might be needed to support faster
mobility in some cases. For a discussion on one way that faster mobility in some cases. For a discussion on one way that faster
mobility MAY be implemented for individual devices, please see mobility MAY be implemented for individual devices, please see
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn].
An ETR MAY also request, by setting the "proxy Map-Reply" flag An ETR MAY also request, by setting the "proxy Map-Reply" flag
(P-bit) in the Map-Register message, that a Map-Server answer Map- (P-bit) in the Map-Register message, that a Map-Server answer Map-
Requests instead of forwarding them to the ETR. See Requests instead of forwarding them to the ETR. See Section 7.1 for
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for details on how the Map-Server sets details on how the Map-Server sets certain flags (such as those
certain flags (such as those indicating whether the message is indicating whether the message is authoritative and how returned
authoritative and how returned Locators SHOULD be treated) when Locators SHOULD be treated) when sending a Map-Reply on behalf of an
sending a Map-Reply on behalf of an ETR. When an ETR requests proxy ETR. When an ETR requests proxy reply service, it SHOULD include all
reply service, it SHOULD include all RLOCs for all ETRs for the EID- RLOCs for all ETRs for the EID-Prefix being registered, along with
Prefix being registered, along with the routable flag ("R-bit") the routable flag ("R-bit") setting for each RLOC. The Map-Server
setting for each RLOC. The Map-Server includes all of this includes all of this information in Map-Reply messages that it sends
information in Map-Reply messages that it sends on behalf of the ETR. on behalf of the ETR. This differs from a non-proxy registration,
This differs from a non-proxy registration, since the latter need since the latter need only provide one or more RLOCs for a Map-Server
only provide one or more RLOCs for a Map-Server to use for forwarding to use for forwarding Map-Requests; the registration information is
Map-Requests; the registration information is not used in Map- not used in Map-Replies, so it being incomplete is not incorrect.
Replies, so it being incomplete is not incorrect.
An ETR that uses a Map-Server to publish its EID-to-RLOC mappings An ETR that uses a Map-Server to publish its EID-to-RLOC mappings
does not need to participate further in the mapping database does not need to participate further in the mapping database
protocol(s). When using a LISP+ALT mapping database, for example, protocol(s). When using a LISP-ALT mapping database, for example,
this means that the ETR does not need to implement GRE or BGP, which this means that the ETR does not need to implement GRE or BGP, which
greatly simplifies its configuration and reduces its cost of greatly simplifies its configuration and reduces its cost of
operation. operation.
Note that use of a Map-Server does not preclude an ETR from also Note that use of a Map-Server does not preclude an ETR from also
connecting to the mapping database (i.e., it could also connect to connecting to the mapping database (i.e., it could also connect to
the LISP+ALT network), but doing so doesn't seem particularly useful, the LISP-ALT network), but doing so doesn't seem particularly useful,
as the whole purpose of using a Map-Server is to avoid the complexity as the whole purpose of using a Map-Server is to avoid the complexity
of the mapping database protocols. of the mapping database protocols.
8.3. Map-Server Processing 8.3. Map-Server Processing
Once a Map-Server has EID-Prefixes registered by its client ETRs, it Once a Map-Server has EID-Prefixes registered by its client ETRs, it
can accept and process Map-Requests for them. can accept and process Map-Requests for them.
In response to a Map-Request (received over the ALT if LISP+ALT is in In response to a Map-Request (received over the ALT if LISP-ALT is in
use), the Map-Server first checks to see if the destination EID use), the Map-Server first checks to see if the destination EID
matches a configured EID-Prefix. If there is no match, the Map- matches a configured EID-Prefix. If there is no match, the Map-
Server returns a Negative Map-Reply with action code "Natively- Server returns a Negative Map-Reply with action code "Natively-
Forward" and a 15-minute TTL. This MAY occur if a Map Request is Forward" and a 15-minute TTL. This MAY occur if a Map Request is
received for a configured aggregate EID-Prefix for which no more- received for a configured aggregate EID-Prefix for which no more-
specific EID-Prefix exists; it indicates the presence of a non-LISP specific EID-Prefix exists; it indicates the presence of a non-LISP
"hole" in the aggregate EID-Prefix. "hole" in the aggregate EID-Prefix.
Next, the Map-Server checks to see if any ETRs have registered the Next, the Map-Server checks to see if any ETRs have registered the
matching EID-Prefix. If none are found, then the Map-Server returns matching EID-Prefix. If none are found, then the Map-Server returns
skipping to change at page 36, line 7 skipping to change at page 36, line 7
Upon receipt of an Encapsulated Map-Request, a Map-Resolver Upon receipt of an Encapsulated Map-Request, a Map-Resolver
decapsulates the enclosed message and then searches for the requested decapsulates the enclosed message and then searches for the requested
EID in its local database of mapping entries (statically configured EID in its local database of mapping entries (statically configured
or learned from associated ETRs if the Map-Resolver is also a Map- or learned from associated ETRs if the Map-Resolver is also a Map-
Server offering proxy reply service). If it finds a matching entry, Server offering proxy reply service). If it finds a matching entry,
it returns a LISP Map-Reply with the known mapping. it returns a LISP Map-Reply with the known mapping.
If the Map-Resolver does not have the mapping entry and if it can If the Map-Resolver does not have the mapping entry and if it can
determine that the EID is not in the mapping database (for example, determine that the EID is not in the mapping database (for example,
if LISP+ALT is used, the Map-Resolver will have an ALT forwarding if LISP-ALT is used, the Map-Resolver will have an ALT forwarding
table that covers the full EID space), it immediately returns a table that covers the full EID space), it immediately returns a
negative LISP Map-Reply, with action code "Natively-Forward" and a negative LISP Map-Reply, with action code "Natively-Forward" and a
15-minute TTL. To minimize the number of negative cache entries 15-minute TTL. To minimize the number of negative cache entries
needed by an ITR, the Map-Resolver SHOULD return the least-specific needed by an ITR, the Map-Resolver SHOULD return the least-specific
prefix that both matches the original query and does not match any prefix that both matches the original query and does not match any
EID-Prefix known to exist in the LISP-capable infrastructure. EID-Prefix known to exist in the LISP-capable infrastructure.
If the Map-Resolver does not have sufficient information to know If the Map-Resolver does not have sufficient information to know
whether the EID exists, it needs to forward the Map-Request to whether the EID exists, it needs to forward the Map-Request to
another device that has more information about the EID being another device that has more information about the EID being
requested. To do this, it forwards the unencapsulated Map-Request, requested. To do this, it forwards the unencapsulated Map-Request,
with the original ITR RLOC as the source, to the mapping database with the original ITR RLOC as the source, to the mapping database
system. Using LISP+ALT, the Map-Resolver is connected to the ALT system. Using LISP-ALT, the Map-Resolver is connected to the ALT
network and sends the Map-Request to the next ALT hop learned from network and sends the Map-Request to the next ALT hop learned from
its ALT BGP neighbors. The Map-Resolver does not send any response its ALT BGP neighbors. The Map-Resolver does not send any response
to the ITR; since the source RLOC is that of the ITR, the ETR or Map- to the ITR; since the source RLOC is that of the ITR, the ETR or Map-
Server that receives the Map-Request over the ALT and responds will Server that receives the Map-Request over the ALT and responds will
do so directly to the ITR. do so directly to the ITR.
8.4.1. Anycast Map-Resolver Operation 8.4.1. Anycast Map-Resolver Operation
A Map-Resolver can be set up to use "anycast", where the same address A Map-Resolver can be set up to use "anycast", where the same address
is assigned to multiple Map-Resolvers and is propagated through IGP is assigned to multiple Map-Resolvers and is propagated through IGP
skipping to change at page 37, line 16 skipping to change at page 37, line 16
messages does not provide protection against "replay" attacks by a messages does not provide protection against "replay" attacks by a
"man-in-the-middle". Additional work is needed in this area. "man-in-the-middle". Additional work is needed in this area.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] defines a proposed mechanism for providing origin [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] defines a proposed mechanism for providing origin
authentication, integrity, anti-replay protection, and prevention of authentication, integrity, anti-replay protection, and prevention of
man-in-the-middle and "overclaiming" attacks on the Map-Request/Map- man-in-the-middle and "overclaiming" attacks on the Map-Request/Map-
Reply exchange. Work is ongoing on this and other proposals for Reply exchange. Work is ongoing on this and other proposals for
resolving these open security issues. resolving these open security issues.
While beyond the scope of securing an individual Map-Server or Map- While beyond the scope of securing an individual Map-Server or Map-
Resolver, it SHOULD be noted that a BGP-based LISP+ALT network (if Resolver, it SHOULD be noted that a BGP-based LISP-ALT network (if
ALT is used as the mapping database infrastructure) can take ALT is used as the mapping database infrastructure) can take
advantage of standards work on adding security to BGP. advantage of standards work on adding security to BGP.
A complete LISP threat analysis has been published in [RFC7835]. A complete LISP threat analysis has been published in [RFC7835].
Please refer to it for more security related details. Please refer to it for more security related details.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
LISP control-plane specification, in accordance with BCP 26 LISP Control-Plane specification, in accordance with BCP 26
[RFC8126]. [RFC8126].
There are three namespaces (listed in the sub-sections below) in LISP There are three namespaces (listed in the sub-sections below) in LISP
that have been registered. that have been registered.
o LISP IANA registry allocations SHOULD NOT be made for purposes o LISP IANA registry allocations SHOULD NOT be made for purposes
unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols. unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols.
o The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in o The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental
Use", and "First Come First Served". Use", and "First Come First Served".
10.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers 10.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4342 for the LISP The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4342 for the LISP
control-plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4342 as Control-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4342 as
follows: follows:
lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets Keyword Port Transport Layer Description
------- ---- --------------- -----------
lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets
10.2. LISP Packet Type Codes 10.2. LISP Packet Type Codes
It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Packet It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Packet
Type definitions and that it refers to this document as well as Type definitions and that it refers to this document as well as
[RFC8113] as references. [RFC8113] as references.
Based on deployment experience of [RFC6830], the Map-Notify-Ack Based on deployment experience of [RFC6830], the Map-Notify-Ack
message, message type 5, was added to this document. This document message, message type 5, was added to this document. This document
requests IANA to add it to the LISP Packet Type Registry. requests IANA to add it to the LISP Packet Type Registry.
Name Number Defined in
---- ------ -----------
LISP Map-Notify-Ack 5 RFC6833bis
10.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields 10.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields
New ACT values can be allocated through IETF review or IESG approval. New ACT values can be allocated through IETF review or IESG approval.
Four values have already been allocated by [RFC6830]. This Four values have already been allocated by [RFC6830]. This
specification changes the name of ACT type 3 value from "Drop" to specification changes the name of ACT type 3 value from "Drop" to
"Drop/No-Reason" as well as adding two new ACT values, the "Drop/ "Drop/No-Reason" as well as adding two new ACT values, the "Drop/
Policy-Denied" (type 4) and "Drop/Authentication-Failure" (type 5). Policy-Denied" (type 4) and "Drop/Authentication-Failure" (type 5).
Value Action Description Reference
----- ------ ----------- ---------
4 Drop/ A Packet matching this Map-Cache RFC6833bis
Policy-Denied entry is dropped because the target
EID is policy-denied by the xTR or
the mapping system.
5 Drop/ A Packet matching this Map-Cache RFC6833bis
Auth-Failure entry is dropped because the
Map-Request for target EID fails an
authentication check by the xTR or
the mapping system.
In addition, LISP has a number of flag fields and reserved fields, In addition, LISP has a number of flag fields and reserved fields,
such as the LISP header flags field [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. New such as the LISP header flags field [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. New
bits for flags in these fields can be implemented after IETF review bits for flags in these fields can be implemented after IETF review
or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA. or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA.
10.4. LISP Address Type Codes 10.4. LISP Address Type Codes
LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] is an 8-bit field that LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] is an 8-bit field that
defines LISP-specific encodings for AFI value 16387. LCAF encodings defines LISP-specific encodings for AFI value 16387. LCAF encodings
are used for specific use-cases where different address types for are used for specific use-cases where different address types for
skipping to change at page 38, line 47 skipping to change at page 39, line 20
10.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers 10.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers
In [RFC6830], a request for a "LISP Key ID Numbers" registry was In [RFC6830], a request for a "LISP Key ID Numbers" registry was
submitted. This document renames the registry to "LISP Algorithm ID submitted. This document renames the registry to "LISP Algorithm ID
Numbers" and requests the IANA to make the name change. Numbers" and requests the IANA to make the name change.
The following Algorithm ID values are defined by this specification The following Algorithm ID values are defined by this specification
as used in any packet type that references a 'Algorithm ID' field: as used in any packet type that references a 'Algorithm ID' field:
Name Number Defined in Name Number Defined in
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
None 0 n/a None 0 RFC6833bis
HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2404] HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2404]
HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC4868] HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC4868]
Number values are in the range of 0 to 255. The allocation of values Number values are in the range of 0 to 255. The allocation of values
is on a first come first served basis. is on a first come first served basis.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the
Internet checksum", RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC1071,
September 1988, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1071>.
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November
1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>. 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>.
[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>.
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
skipping to change at page 39, line 36 skipping to change at page 40, line 15
[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>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>. January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
[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>.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
[RFC8113] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation [RFC8113] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation
skipping to change at page 40, line 27 skipping to change at page 41, line 16
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007.
[I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino, Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan- F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
lisp-nat-traversal-13 (work in progress), September 2017. lisp-nat-traversal-13 (work in progress), September 2017.
[I-D.herbert-intarea-ila]
Herbert, T. and P. Lapukhov, "Identifier-locator
addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work
in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01 Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01
(work in progress), November 2017. (work in progress), November 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015. progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress), Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress),
October 2017. October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 (work in progress), (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 (work in progress),
February 2018. March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
(work in progress), October 2017. (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-08 (work in draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09 (work in
progress), February 2018. progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering] [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering]
Gont, F., Gont, G., and C. Pignataro, "Recommendations for Gont, F., Gont, G., and C. Pignataro, "Recommendations for
filtering ICMP messages", draft-ietf-opsec-icmp- filtering ICMP messages", draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-
filtering-04 (work in progress), July 2013. filtering-04 (work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.lewis-lisp-gpe] [I-D.lewis-lisp-gpe]
Lewis, D., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L., Quinn, P., Lewis, D., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L., Quinn, P.,
Smith, M., Yadav, N., and F. Maino, "LISP Generic Protocol Smith, M., Yadav, N., and F. Maino, "LISP Generic Protocol
Extension", draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04 (work in progress), Extension", draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04 (work in progress),
skipping to change at page 41, line 46 skipping to change at page 42, line 36
2015. 2015.
[I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub] [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub]
Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F., Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F.,
Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., Farinacci, D., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., Farinacci, D.,
Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and s. Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and s.
stefano.secci@lip6.fr, "Publish/Subscribe Functionality stefano.secci@lip6.fr, "Publish/Subscribe Functionality
for LISP", draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub-02 (work in for LISP", draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub-02 (work in
progress), March 2018. progress), March 2018.
[LISP-CONS]
Brim, S., Chiappa, N., Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Lewis,
D., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A Content distribution
Overlay Network Service for LISP", Work in Progress, April
2008.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[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 43, line 12 skipping to change at page 44, line 12
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Greg Schudel, Darrel Lewis, John The authors would like to thank Greg Schudel, Darrel Lewis, John
Zwiebel, Andrew Partan, Dave Meyer, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Zwiebel, Andrew Partan, Dave Meyer, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver,
Fabio Maino, and members of the lisp@ietf.org mailing list for their Fabio Maino, and members of the lisp@ietf.org mailing list for their
feedback and helpful suggestions. feedback and helpful suggestions.
Special thanks are due to Noel Chiappa for his extensive work on Special thanks are due to Noel Chiappa for his extensive work and
caching with LISP-CONS, some of which may be used by Map-Resolvers. thought about caching in Map-Resolvers.
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-rfc6833bis-08 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09
o Posted March IETF week 2018.
o Fixed editorial comments submitted by document shepherd Luigi
Iannone.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08
o Posted March 2018. o Posted March 2018.
o Added RLOC-probing algorithm. o Added RLOC-probing algorithm.
o Added Solicit-Map Request algorithm. o Added Solicit-Map Request algorithm.
o Added several mechanisms (from 6830bis) regarding Routing Locator o Added several mechanisms (from 6830bis) regarding Routing Locator
Reachability. Reachability.
o Added port 4342 to IANA Considerations section. o Added port 4342 to IANA Considerations section.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07
o Posted December 2017. o Posted December 2017.
o Make it more clear in a couple of places that RLOCs are used to o Make it more clear in a couple of places that RLOCs are used to
locate ETRs more so than for Map-Server Map-Request forwarding. locate ETRs more so than for Map-Server Map-Request forwarding.
o Make it clear that "encapsualted" for a control message is an ECM o Make it clear that "encapsualted" for a control message is an ECM
based message. based message.
o Make it more clear what messages use source-port 4342 and which o Make it more clear what messages use source-port 4342 and which
skipping to change at page 44, line 11 skipping to change at page 45, line 19
Can use othe AFIs then IPv4 and IPv6. Can use othe AFIs then IPv4 and IPv6.
o Many editorial changes to clarify text. o Many editorial changes to clarify text.
o Changed some "must", "should", and "may" to capitalized. o Changed some "must", "should", and "may" to capitalized.
o Added definitions for Map-Request and Map-Reply messages. o Added definitions for Map-Request and Map-Reply messages.
o Ran document through IDNITs. o Ran document through IDNITs.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06
o Posted October 2017. o Posted October 2017.
o Spec the I-bit to include the xTR-ID in a Map-Request message to o Spec the I-bit to include the xTR-ID in a Map-Request message to
be consistent with the Map-Register message and to anticipate the be consistent with the Map-Register message and to anticipate the
introduction of pubsub functionality to allow Map-Requests to introduction of pubsub functionality to allow Map-Requests to
subscribe to RLOC-set changes. subscribe to RLOC-set changes.
o Updated references for individual submissions that became working o Updated references for individual submissions that became working
group documents. group documents.
o Updated references for working group documents that became RFCs. o Updated references for working group documents that became RFCs.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05
o Posted May 2017. o Posted May 2017.
o Update IANA Considerations section based on new requests from this o Update IANA Considerations section based on new requests from this
document and changes from what was requested in [RFC6830]. document and changes from what was requested in [RFC6830].
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04
o Posted May 2017. o Posted May 2017.
o Clarify how the Key-ID field is used in Map-Register and Map- o Clarify how the Key-ID field is used in Map-Register and Map-
Notify messages. Break the 16-bit field into a 8-bit Key-ID field Notify messages. Break the 16-bit field into a 8-bit Key-ID field
and a 8-bit Algorithm-ID field. and a 8-bit Algorithm-ID field.
o Move the control-plane codepoints from the IANA Considerations o Move the Control-Plane codepoints from the IANA Considerations
section of RFC6830bis to the IANA Considerations section of this section of RFC6830bis to the IANA Considerations section of this
document. document.
o In the "LISP Control Packet Type Allocations" section, indicate o In the "LISP Control Packet Type Allocations" section, indicate
how message Types are IANA allocated and how experimental RFC8113 how message Types are IANA allocated and how experimental RFC8113
sub-types should be requested. sub-types should be requested.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03
o Posted April 2017. o Posted April 2017.
o Add types 9-14 and specify they are not assigned. o Add types 9-14 and specify they are not assigned.
o Add the "LISP Shared Extension Message" type and point to RFC8113. o Add the "LISP Shared Extension Message" type and point to RFC8113.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02
o Posted April 2017. o Posted April 2017.
o Clarify that the LISP control-plane document defines how the LISP o Clarify that the LISP Control-Plane document defines how the LISP
data-plane uses Map-Requests with either the SMR-bit set or the Data-Plane uses Map-Requests with either the SMR-bit set or the
P-bit set supporting mapping updates and RLOC-probing. Indicating P-bit set supporting mapping updates and RLOC-probing. Indicating
that other data-planes can use the same mechanisms or their own that other Data-Planes can use the same mechanisms or their own
defined mechanisms to achieve the same functionality. defined mechanisms to achieve the same functionality.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01
o Posted March 2017. o Posted March 2017.
o Include references to new RFCs published. o Include references to new RFCs published.
o Remove references to self. o Remove references to self.
o Change references from RFC6830 to RFC6830bis. o Change references from RFC6830 to RFC6830bis.
o Add two new action/reasons to a Map-Reply has posted to the LISP o Add two new action/reasons to a Map-Reply has posted to the LISP
WG mailing list. WG mailing list.
o In intro section, add refernece to I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction. o In intro section, add refernece to I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction.
o Removed Open Issues section and references to "experimental". o Removed Open Issues section and references to "experimental".
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-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
-rfc6833-00 individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6833-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00
o Posted November 2016. o Posted November 2016.
o This is the initial draft to turn RFC 6833 into RFC 6833bis. o This is the initial draft to turn RFC 6833 into RFC 6833bis.
o The document name has changed from the "Locator/ID Separation o The document name has changed from the "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface" to the "Locator/ID Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface" to the "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane". Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane".
o The fundamental change was to move the control-plane messages from o The fundamental change was to move the Control-Plane messages from
RFC 6830 to this document in an effort so any IETF developed or RFC 6830 to this document in an effort so any IETF developed or
industry created data-plane could use the LISP mapping system and industry created Data-Plane could use the LISP mapping system and
control-plane. Control-Plane.
o Update control-plane messages to incorporate what has been o Update Control-Plane messages to incorporate what has been
implemented in products during the early phase of LISP development implemented in products during the early phase of LISP development
but wasn't able to make it into RFC6830 and RFC6833 to make the but wasn't able to make it into RFC6830 and RFC6833 to make the
Experimental RFC deadline. Experimental RFC deadline.
o Indicate there may be nodes in the mapping system that are not MRs o Indicate there may be nodes in the mapping system that are not MRs
or MSs, that is a ALT-node or a DDT-node. or MSs, that is a ALT-node or a DDT-node.
o Include LISP-DDT in Map-Resolver section and explain how they o Include LISP-DDT in Map-Resolver section and explain how they
maintain a referral-cache. maintain a referral-cache.
 End of changes. 94 change blocks. 
173 lines changed or deleted 209 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/