draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20.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 24, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech Expires: May 8, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech
October 21, 2018 November 4, 2018
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20
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 24, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 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 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 12.6. LISP Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 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-20 . . . . . . . . 53
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 53 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 . . . . . . . . 53
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 53 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 53
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 54 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 54
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 54 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 54
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 54 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 54
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 54 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 54
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 54 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 54
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 54 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 55
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 55 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 55
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 55 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 55
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 55 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 55
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 55 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 55
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 56 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 55
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 56 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 56
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 56 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 56
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 57 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 56
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 57 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 57
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 57 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 57
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 57 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 57
B.21. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 57 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 57
B.22. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 58
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 13, line 15 skipping to change at page 13, line 15
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) Section 6.1 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.
R: This reserved bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored R: This reserved and unassigned bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and
on receipt. MUST be ignored on receipt.
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 part of the RLOC-set tell other xTRs in the same site that it is part of the RLOC-set
for the LISP site. The L-bit is set to 1 when the RLOC is the for the LISP site. The L-bit is set to 1 when the RLOC is the
sender's IP address. 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
skipping to change at page 18, line 11 skipping to change at page 18, line 11
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].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . | | AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be Reserved: This unassigned field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and
ignored on receipt. MUST be 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 64-bit value from the Map-Request is echoed in this Nonce: This 64-bit value from the Map-Request is echoed in this
'Nonce' field of the Map-Reply. 'Nonce' field of the Map-Reply.
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-
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 25, line 5
Type: 3 (Map-Register) Type: 3 (Map-Register)
P: This is the proxy Map-Reply bit. When set to 1, an ETR sends a P: This is the proxy Map-Reply bit. When set to 1, an ETR sends a
Map-Register message requesting the Map-Server to proxy a Map- Map-Register message requesting the Map-Server to proxy a Map-
Reply. The Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map-Replies on Reply. The Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map-Replies on
behalf of the ETR. behalf of the ETR.
S: This is the security-capable bit. When set, the procedures from S: This is the security-capable bit. When set, the procedures from
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] are supported. [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] are supported.
Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be Reserved: This unassigned field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and
ignored on receipt. MUST be ignored on receipt.
E: This is the Map-Register EID-notify bit. This is used by a First- E: This is the Map-Register EID-notify bit. This is used by a First-
Hop-Router (FHR) which discovers a dynamic-EID. This EID-notify Hop-Router (FHR) which discovers a dynamic-EID. This EID-notify
based Map-Register is sent by the FHR to the same site xTR that based Map-Register is sent by the FHR to the same site xTR that
propogates the Map-Register to the mapping system. The site xTR propogates the Map-Register to the mapping system. The site xTR
keeps state to later Map-Notify the FHR after the EID has moves keeps state to later Map-Notify the FHR after the EID has moves
away. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] for a detailed use-case. away. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] for a detailed use-case.
T: This is the use-TTL for timeout bit. When set to 1, the xTR wants T: This is the use-TTL for timeout bit. When set to 1, the xTR wants
the Map-Server to time out registrations based on the value in the the Map-Server to time out registrations based on the value in the
"Record TTL" field of this message. Otherwise, the default "Record TTL" field of this message. Otherwise, the default
timeout described in Section 8.2 is used. timeout described in Section 8.2 is used.
a: This is the merge-request bit. When set to 1, the xTR requests to a: This is the merge-request bit. When set to 1, the xTR requests to
merge RLOC-records from different xTRs registering the same EID- merge RLOC-records from different xTRs registering the same EID-
record. See signal-free multicast [RFC8378] for one use case record. See signal-free multicast [RFC8378] for one use case
example. example.
R: This reserved bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored R: This reserved and unassigned bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and
on receipt. MUST be ignored on receipt.
M: This is the want-map-notify bit. When set to 1, an ETR is M: This is the want-map-notify bit. When set to 1, an ETR is
requesting a Map-Notify message to be returned in response to requesting a Map-Notify message to be returned in response to
sending a Map-Register message. The Map-Notify message sent by a sending a Map-Register message. The Map-Notify message sent by a
Map-Server is used to acknowledge receipt of a Map-Register Map-Server is used to acknowledge receipt of a Map-Register
message. message.
Record Count: This is the number of records in this Map-Register Record Count: This is the number of records in this Map-Register
message. A record is comprised of that portion of the packet message. A record is comprised of that portion of the packet
labeled 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to labeled 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to
Record Count. Record Count.
Nonce: This 8-octet 'Nonce' field is incremented each time a Map- Nonce: This 8-octet 'Nonce' field is incremented each time a Map-
Register message is sent. When a Map-Register acknowledgement is Register message is sent. When a Map-Register acknowledgement is
requested, the nonce is returned by Map-Servers in Map-Notify requested, the nonce is returned by Map-Servers in Map-Notify
messages. Since the entire Map-Register message is authenticated, messages. Since the entire Map-Register message is authenticated,
the 'Nonce' field serves to protect against Map-Register replay the 'Nonce' field serves to protect against Map-Register replay
attacks. attacks. An ETR that registers to the mapping system SHOULD store
the last nonce sent in persistent storage so when it restarts it
can continue using an incrementing nonce. If the the ETR cannot
support saving the nonce, then when it restarts it MUST use a new
authentication key to register to the mapping system. A Map-
Server MUST track and save in persistent storage the last nonce
received for each ETR that registers to it. If a Map-Register is
received with a nonce value that is not greater than the saved
nonce, it drops the Map-Register message and logs the fact a
replay attack could have occurred.
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 12.5 for codepoint Algorithm ID Numbers in the Section 12.5 for codepoint
assignments. assignments.
skipping to change at page 48, line 17 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-24 (work in progress), (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 (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>.
skipping to change at page 49, line 30 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-03 (work in EID Anonymity", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-04 (work in
progress), October 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.
skipping to change at page 50, line 15 skipping to change at page 50, line 15
[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-04 (work in progress), Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 (work in progress),
October 2018. October 2018.
[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-02 (work in progress), November 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-16 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-16
(work in progress), October 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.
skipping to change at page 53, line 30 skipping to change at page 53, line 30
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20
o Posted late October 2018.
o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and
unassigned".
o Make it more clear how Map-Register nonce processing is performed
in an ETR and Map-Server.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19
o Posted mid October 2018. o Posted mid October 2018.
o Added Fabio text to the Security Considerations section. o Added Fabio text to the Security Considerations section.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18
o Posted mid October 2018. o Posted mid October 2018.
o Fixed comments from Eric after more email clarity. o Fixed comments from Eric after more email clarity.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 B.4. 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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 B.14. 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 25
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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.22. 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. 33 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 78 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/