draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19.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: April 15, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech Expires: April 24, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech
October 12, 2018 October 21, 2018
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19
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 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 April 15, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats . . . . . . . 8 5. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats . . . . . . . 8
5.1. LISP Control Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. LISP Control Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.7. Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format . . . . . . . . 27 5.7. Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format . . . . . . . . 27
5.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . 29
skipping to change at page 2, line 47 skipping to change at page 2, line 48
7. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 36 8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 36
8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.4.1. Anycast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.4.1. Anycast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
11. Changes since RFC 6833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 11. Changes since RFC 6833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
12.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 12.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 12.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 12.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12.6. LISP Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12.6. LISP Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 53 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 53
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 53 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 53
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 54 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 53
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 54 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 54
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 54 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 54
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 54 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 54
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 54 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 54
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 54 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 54
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 55 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 54
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 55 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 55
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 55 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 55
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 55 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 55
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 56 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 55
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 56 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 56
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 56 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 56
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 57 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 56
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 57 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 57
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 57 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 57
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 57 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 57
B.20. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 57 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 57
B.21. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 57
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] (see The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] (see
also [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]) specifies an architecture and also [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]) specifies an architecture and
mechanism for dynamic tunneling by logically separating the addresses mechanism for dynamic tunneling 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 4, line 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
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.
LISP is not intended to address problems of connectivity and scaling LISP is not intended to address problems of connectivity and scaling
on behalf of arbitrary communicating parties. Relevant situations on behalf of arbitrary communicating parties. Relevant situations
are described in the scoping section of the introduction to are described in the scoping section of the introduction to
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
This document obsoletes RFC 6830 and 6833. This document obsoletes RFC 6830 and 6833.
1.1. Scope of Applicability
LISP was originally developed to address the Internet-wide route
scaling problem [RFC4984].. While there are a number of approaches
of interest for that problem, as LISP as been developed and refined,
a large number of other LISP uses have been found and are being used.
As such, the design and development of LISP has changed so as to
focus on these use cases. The common property of these uses is a
large set of cooperating entities seeking to communicate over the
public Internet or other large underlay IP infrastructures, while
keeping the addressing and topology of the cooperating entities
separate from the underlay and Internet topology, routing, and
addressing.
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
skipping to change at page 40, line 7 skipping to change at page 40, line 7
routing, to facilitate the use of a topologically close Map-Resolver routing, to facilitate the use of a topologically close Map-Resolver
by each ITR. by each ITR.
ETRs MAY have anycast RLOC addresses which are registered as part of ETRs MAY have anycast RLOC addresses which are registered as part of
their RLOC-set to the mapping system. However, registrations MUST their RLOC-set to the mapping system. However, registrations MUST
use their unique RLOC addresses or distinct authentication keys to use their unique RLOC addresses or distinct authentication keys to
identify security associations with the Map-Servers. identify security associations with the Map-Servers.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835]. In what
follows we highlight security considerations that apply when LISP is
deployed in environments such as those specified in Section 1.1,
where the following assumptions hold:
1. The Mapping System is secure and trusted, and for the purpose of
this security considerations the Mapping System is considered as
one trusted element.
2. The ETRs have a pre-configured trust relationship with the
Mapping System, which includes some form of shared keys, and the
Mapping System is aware of which EIDs an ETR can advertise. How
those keys and mappings gets established is out of the scope of
this document.
3. LISP-SEC [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] MUST be implemented. Network
operartors should carefully weight how the LISP-SEC threat model
applies to their particular use case or deployment. If they
decide to ignore a particular recommendation, they should make
sure the risk associated with the corresponding threats is well
understood.
The Map-Request/Map-Reply message exchange can be exploited by an The Map-Request/Map-Reply message exchange can be exploited by an
attacker to mount DoS and/or amplification attacks. Attackers can attacker to mount DoS and/or amplification attacks. Attackers can
send Map-Requests at high rates to overload LISP nodes and increase send Map-Requests at high rates to overload LISP nodes and increase
the state maintained by such nodes or consume CPU cycles. Such the state maintained by such nodes or consume CPU cycles. Such
threats can be mitigated by systematically applying filters and rate threats can be mitigated by systematically applying filters and rate
limiters. limiters.
The 2-way LISP control-plane header nonce exchange can be used to The 2-way LISP control-plane header nonce exchange can be used to
avoid ITR spoofing attacks, but active on-path attackers (e.g 'man- avoid ITR spoofing attacks, but active on-path attackers (e.g 'man-
in-the-middle') capable of intercepting the nonce can exploit the in-the-middle') capable of intercepting the nonce can exploit the
skipping to change at page 47, line 33 skipping to change at page 48, line 17
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018. lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018.
[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-23 (work in progress), (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 (work in progress),
October 2018. October 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-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6071] Frankel, S. and S. Krishnan, "IP Security (IPsec) and [RFC6071] Frankel, S. and S. Krishnan, "IP Security (IPsec) and
Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap", RFC 6071, Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap", RFC 6071,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6071, February 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6071, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6071>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6071>.
skipping to change at page 48, line 44 skipping to change at page 49, line 30
addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work
in progress), March 2018. in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth]
Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA
Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa- Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-
auth-00 (work in progress), September 2018. auth-00 (work in progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity] [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity]
Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP
EID Anonymity", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 (work in EID Anonymity", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-03 (work in
progress), April 2018. progress), October 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-02 Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-02
(work in progress), May 2018. (work in progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-gpe] [I-D.ietf-lisp-gpe]
Maino, F., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Lewis, D., and M. Maino, F., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Lewis, D., and M.
Smith, "LISP Generic Protocol Extension", draft-ietf-lisp- Smith, "LISP Generic Protocol Extension", draft-ietf-lisp-
skipping to change at page 49, line 30 skipping to change at page 50, line 19
[I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] [I-D.ietf-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. Secci, "Publish/ Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and S. Secci, "Publish/
Subscribe Functionality for LISP", draft-ietf-lisp- Subscribe Functionality for LISP", draft-ietf-lisp-
pubsub-01 (work in progress), October 2018. pubsub-01 (work in progress), October 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-16
(work in progress), April 2018. (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-06 (work Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-06 (work
in progress), April 2018. 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 53, line 34 skipping to change at page 53, line 34
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18
o Posted mid October 2018. o Posted mid October 2018.
o Added Fabio text to the Security Considerations section.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18
o Posted mid October 2018.
o Fixed comments from Eric after more email clarity. o Fixed comments from Eric after more email clarity.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17
o Posted early October 2018. o Posted early October 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat.
o Added all flag bit definitions as request for allocation in IANA o Added all flag bit definitions as request for allocation in IANA
Considersations section. Considersations section.
o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security
concerns from Telechat. concerns from Telechat.
o Moved m-bit description and IANA request to draft-ietf-lisp-mn. o Moved m-bit description and IANA request to draft-ietf-lisp-mn.
o Moved I-bit description and IANA request to draft-ietf-lisp- o Moved I-bit description and IANA request to draft-ietf-lisp-
pubsub. pubsub.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16
o Posted Late-September 2018. o Posted Late-September 2018.
o Re-wrote Security Considerations section. Thanks Albert. o Re-wrote Security Considerations section. Thanks Albert.
o Added Alvaro text to be more clear about IANA actions. o Added Alvaro text to be more clear about IANA actions.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15
o Posted mid-September 2018. o Posted mid-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Colin and Mirja. o Changes to reflect comments from Colin and Mirja.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14
o Posted September 2018. o Posted September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Genart, RTGarea, and Secdir o Changes to reflect comments from Genart, RTGarea, and Secdir
reviews. reviews.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13
o Posted August 2018. o Posted August 2018.
o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
Standard. Standard.
o Added section "Changes since RFC 6833" so implementators are o Added section "Changes since RFC 6833" so implementators are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12
o Posted late July 2018. o Posted late July 2018.
o Moved RFC6830bis and RFC6834bis to Normative References. o Moved RFC6830bis and RFC6834bis to Normative References.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 B.13. 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 56, line 13 skipping to change at page 56, line 13
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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.21. 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. 35 change blocks. 
57 lines changed or deleted 106 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/