draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12.txt 
Network Working Group V. Fuller Network Working Group V. Fuller
Internet-Draft D. Farinacci Internet-Draft D. Farinacci
Obsoletes: 6833 (if approved) Cisco Systems Obsoletes: 6833 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track A. Cabellos (Ed.) Intended status: Standards Track A. Cabellos (Ed.)
Expires: January 18, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech Expires: January 27, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech
July 17, 2018 July 26, 2018
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 January 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 27, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
10.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 10.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 44 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 44
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 45 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 46
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46
B.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 47 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47
B.14. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 47
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
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 dynamic tunnelling by logically separating the addresses for dynamic tunnelling by logically separating the addresses
currently used by IP in two separate name spaces: Endpoint IDs currently used by IP in two separate name spaces: Endpoint IDs
(EIDs), used within sites; and Routing Locators (RLOCs), used on the (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing Locators (RLOCs), used on the
transit networks that make up the Internet infrastructure. To transit networks that make up the Internet infrastructure. To
skipping to change at page 17, line 36 skipping to change at page 17, line 36
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
[RFC6834] for more details. [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] 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 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 [RFC6834] is used, an SMR sender Map-Versioning as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] is used,
can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date database an SMR sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date
mapping. database 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 39, line 45 skipping to change at page 39, line 45
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
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 (work in progress),
July 2018.
[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 40, line 48 skipping to change at page 41, line 10
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015. progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-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-02 (work in progress), Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-02 (work in progress),
April 2018. April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 (work in progress),
July 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-15 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-15
(work in progress), April 2018. (work in progress), April 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.
skipping to change at page 42, line 40 skipping to change at page 42, line 44
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>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 44, line 19 skipping to change at page 44, line 19
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 and Special thanks are due to Noel Chiappa for his extensive work and
thought about caching in 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-11 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12
o Posted late July 2018.
o Moved RFC6830bis and RFC6834bis to Normative References.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11
o Posted July 2018. o Posted July 2018.
o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status and o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status and
ran through IDNITs again. ran through IDNITs again.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10
o Posted after LISP WG at IETF week March. o Posted after LISP WG at IETF week March.
o Move AD field encoding after S-bit in the ECM packet format o Move AD field encoding after S-bit in the ECM packet format
description section. description section.
o Say more about when the new Drop actions should be sent. o Say more about when the new Drop actions should be sent.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09
o Posted March IETF week 2018. o Posted March IETF week 2018.
o Fixed editorial comments submitted by document shepherd Luigi o Fixed editorial comments submitted by document shepherd Luigi
Iannone. Iannone.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 B.6. 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 45, line 34 skipping to change at page 45, line 39
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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.14. 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
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 52 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/