draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-03.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: January 3, 2019 V. Ashtaputre Expires: April 11, 2019 V. Ashtaputre
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
D. Farinacci D. Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
July 2, 2018 October 8, 2018
Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02 draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF), This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF),
the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have
internal encodings for 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments.
However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that
may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are
defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
deployments. deployments.
2. Requirements Language 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 19 skipping to change at page 3, line 19
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length | | Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) | | Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... | | Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor Specific LCAF Vendor Specific LCAF
The Vendor Specific LCAF has the following fields. The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor Specific LCAF
are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
in [RFC8060]. The "Type" field MUST be set to the value 255 to
indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF. The fields defined by
the Vendor Specific LCAF are:
Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be
set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
that carries the IEEE OUI [IEEE.802_2001] of the organization. that carries the IEEE OUI [IEEE.802_2001] of the organization.
Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left
undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its
own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF. own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF.
The definition for the rest of the fields can be found in [RFC8060]. The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where
different organizations interoperate. However, there may be cases
where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which
they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor
Specific LCAF. In that case, the organizations involved need to
carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular
deployment.
The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific
different organizations interoperate. If a LISP device receives a LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it message.
does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST
be taken.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
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 and Luigi Iannone for
comments regarding this document. their suggestions and guidance regarding this document.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], 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] [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-12 (work in progress), (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 (work in progress),
March 2018. October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 (work in progress), March draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 (work in progress), October
2018. 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,
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 10
[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 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
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
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: vermagan@cisco.com Email: vermagan@cisco.com
Anton Smirnov Anton Smirnov
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive Diegem
San Jose, CA Belgium
USA
Email: asmirnov@cisco.com Email: asmirnov@cisco.com
Vrushali Ashtaputre Vrushali Ashtaputre
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: vrushali@cisco.com Email: vrushali@cisco.com
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com Email: farinacci@gmail.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 37 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/