draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23.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: May 18, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech Expires: June 13, 2019 UPC/BarcelonaTech
November 14, 2018 December 10, 2018
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23
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 May 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 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 2, line 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 49
7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 37 8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 37
8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.4.1. Anycast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8.4.1. Anycast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
11. Changes since RFC 6833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 11. Changes since RFC 6833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 12.3. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
12.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 12.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 12.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12.6. LISP Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 12.6. LISP Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 . . . . . . . . 54 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23 . . . . . . . . 55
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-21 . . . . . . . . 54 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 . . . . . . . . 55
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20 . . . . . . . . 54 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-21 . . . . . . . . 56
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 . . . . . . . . 55 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20 . . . . . . . . 56
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 55 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 . . . . . . . . 56
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 55 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 56
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 55 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 56
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 55 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 57
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 55 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 57
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 56 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 57
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 56 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 57
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 56 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 57
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 56 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 57
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 56 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 58
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 56 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 58
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 57 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 58
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 57 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 58
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 58 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 59
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 58 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 59
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 58 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 59
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 58 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 60
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 58 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 60
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 59 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 60
B.24. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 59 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 60
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 B.25. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 60
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
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
achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol mechanisms for mapping achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol mechanisms for mapping
skipping to change at page 28, line 46 skipping to change at page 28, line 46
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 4/5 (Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack) Type: 4/5 (Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack)
The Map-Notify message has the same contents as a Map-Register The Map-Notify message has the same contents as a Map-Register
message. See the Map-Register section for field descriptions. message. See the Map-Register section for field descriptions and the
Map-Reply section for EID-record and RLOC-record descriptions.
The Map-Notify-Ack message has the same contents as a Map-Notify The Map-Notify-Ack message has the same contents as a Map-Notify
message. It is used to acknowledge the receipt of a Map-Notify message. It is used to acknowledge the receipt of a Map-Notify
(solicited or unsolicited) and for the sender to stop retransmitting (solicited or unsolicited) and for the sender to stop retransmitting
a Map-Notify with the same nonce. a Map-Notify with the same nonce.
A Map-Server sends an unsolicited Map-Notify message (one that is not A Map-Server sends an unsolicited Map-Notify message (one that is not
used as an acknowledgment to a Map-Register message) that follows the used as an acknowledgment to a Map-Register message) that follows the
Congestion Control And Relability Guideline sections of [RFC8085]. A Congestion Control And Relability Guideline sections of [RFC8085]. A
Map-Notify is retransmitted until a Map-Notify-Ack is received by the Map-Notify is retransmitted until a Map-Notify-Ack is received by the
skipping to change at page 42, line 19 skipping to change at page 42, line 19
that is a MAC of the entire message using a pair-wise shared key. An that is a MAC of the entire message using a pair-wise shared key. An
implementation MUST support use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2104] and SHOULD implementation MUST support use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2104] and SHOULD
support use of HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC6234] (SHA-256 truncated to 128 support use of HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC6234] (SHA-256 truncated to 128
bits). The Map-Register message is vulnerable to replay attacks by a bits). The Map-Register message is vulnerable to replay attacks by a
man-in-the-middle. A compromised ETR can overclaim the prefix it man-in-the-middle. A compromised ETR can overclaim the prefix it
owns and successfully register it on its corresponding Map-Server. owns and successfully register it on its corresponding Map-Server.
To mitigate this and as noted in Section 8.2, a Map-Server SHOULD To mitigate this and as noted in Section 8.2, a Map-Server SHOULD
verify that all EID-Prefixes registered by an ETR match the verify that all EID-Prefixes registered by an ETR match the
configuration stored on the Map-Server. configuration stored on the Map-Server.
Deployments concerned about manipulations of Map-Request and Map-
Reply messages, and malicious ETR EID prefix overclaiming MUST drop
LISP Control Plane messages that do not contain LISP-SEC material
(S-bit, EID-AD, OTK-AD, PKT-AD).
Encrypting control messages via DTLS [RFC6347] or LISP-crypto
[RFC8061] SHOULD be used to support privacy to prevent eavesdroping
and packet tampering for messages exchanged between xTRs, xTRs and
the mapping system, and nodes that make up the mapping system.
A complete LISP threat analysis has been published in [RFC7835]. A complete LISP threat analysis has been published in [RFC7835].
Please refer to it for more detailed security related details. Please refer to it for more detailed security related details.
10. Privacy Considerations 10. Privacy Considerations
As noted by [RFC6973] privacy is a complex issue that greatly depends As noted by [RFC6973] privacy is a complex issue that greatly depends
on the specific protocol use-case and deployment. As noted in on the specific protocol use-case and deployment. As noted in
section 1.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] LISP focuses on use-cases section 1.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] LISP focuses on use-cases
where entities communicate over the public Internet while keeping where entities communicate over the public Internet while keeping
separate addressing and topology. In what follows we detail the separate addressing and topology. In what follows we detail the
skipping to change at page 49, line 20 skipping to change at page 49, line 20
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-26 (work in progress), (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 (work in progress),
November 2018. November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17
(work in progress), November 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 49, line 49 skipping to change at page 50, line 5
[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>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>. March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007.
skipping to change at page 51, line 17 skipping to change at page 51, line 23
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-02 (work in progress), November 2018. pubsub-02 (work in progress), November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-16
(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 21 skipping to change at page 53, line 21
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
[RFC8113] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation [RFC8113] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry
for Packet Type Allocations", RFC 8113, for Packet Type Allocations", RFC 8113,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8113, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8113, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8113>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8113>.
skipping to change at page 54, line 30 skipping to change at page 55, 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-22 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23
o Posted December 2018.
o Added to Security Considerations section that deployments that
care about prefix over claiming should use LISP-SEC.
o Added to Security Considerations section that DTLS or LISP-crypto
be used for control-plane privacy.
o Make LISP-SEC a normative reference.
o Make it more clear where field descriptions are spec'ed when
referencing to the same fields in other packet types.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22
o Posted week after IETF November 2018. o Posted week after IETF November 2018.
o No longer need to use IPSEC for replay attacks. o No longer need to use IPSEC for replay attacks.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-21 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-21
o Posted early November 2018. o Posted early November 2018.
o Added I-bit back in because its necessary to use for Map-Register o Added I-bit back in because its necessary to use for Map-Register
replay attack scenarios. The Map-Server tracks the nonce per xTR- replay attack scenarios. The Map-Server tracks the nonce per xTR-
ID to detect duplicate or replayed Map-Register messages. ID to detect duplicate or replayed Map-Register messages.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20
o Posted late October 2018. o Posted late October 2018.
o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and
unassigned". unassigned".
o Make it more clear how Map-Register nonce processing is performed o Make it more clear how Map-Register nonce processing is performed
in an ETR and Map-Server. in an ETR and Map-Server.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 B.17. 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 57, line 39 skipping to change at page 59, 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 B.19. 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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 B.20. 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 B.22. 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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 B.23. 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.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.24. 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.24. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 B.25. 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. 
62 lines changed or deleted 98 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/