draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-01.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02.txt 
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft V. Ermagan Internet-Draft V. Ermagan
Intended status: Experimental A. Smirnov Intended status: Experimental A. Smirnov
Expires: August 20, 2018 V. Ashtaputre Expires: January 3, 2019 V. Ashtaputre
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
D. Farinacci D. Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
2 16, 2018 July 2, 2018
Vendor Specific LCAF Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-01 draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a new LCAF for LISP, the Vendor Specific This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF),
LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have internal encodings for the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have
LCAF addresses. internal encodings for LCAF addresses.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 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 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP Canonical Address Format [RFC8060] defines the format and The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
[RFC6830] deployments. However, certain deployments require specific [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments.
format encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use-case However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that
for which they are defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are
organizations to create LCAF addresses to be used only internally on defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
particular LISP deployments. LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
deployments.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
3. Vendor Specific LCAF 3. Vendor Specific LCAF
The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] to prevent collisions across Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] to prevent collisions across
vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor
Specific LCAF is provided below. Specific LCAF is provided below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length | | Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) | | Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... | | Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 7
internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to
properly assess the security implications of the formats they define. properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern for his suggestions and The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern for his suggestions and
comments regarding this document. comments regarding this document.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC5226], this document requests IANA to Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], this document requests IANA to
update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry
defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment: defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment:
+---------+---------------------+-----------+ +---------+---------------------+------------+
| Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference | | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+---------+---------------------+-----------+ +---------+---------------------+------------+
| 255 | Vendor Specific | Section 3 | | 255 | Vendor Specific | Section 3 |
+---------+---------------------+-----------+ +---------+---------------------+------------+
Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 (work in progress),
March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 (work in progress), March
2018.
[IEEE.802_2001] [IEEE.802_2001]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001, Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: natal@cisco.com Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan Vina Ermagan
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
34 lines changed or deleted 43 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/