draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer
Expires: January 28, 2010 D. Lewis Expires: March 20, 2010 D. Lewis
cisco Systems cisco Systems
July 27, 2009 September 16, 2009
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Tunneling Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Tunneling Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . 21 5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . 21
5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 21 5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 22 5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 22
6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats . . . . . 24 6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats . . . . . 24
6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.2. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.3. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.4. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.3.2. RLOC Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.5. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . 40 6.4. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.5.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.5. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . 42
6.5.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 6.5.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6.5.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 7. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . 46 8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . 49
9. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 9. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
9.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10.1. Site Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10.1. Site Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
13. Prototype Plans and Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 13. Prototype Plans and Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1. Requirements Notation 1. 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
Many years of discussion about the current IP routing and addressing Many years of discussion about the current IP routing and addressing
skipping to change at page 10, line 37 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
typically contains a small piece of the database: the EID-to-RLOC typically contains a small piece of the database: the EID-to-RLOC
mappings for the EID prefixes "behind" the router. These map to mappings for the EID prefixes "behind" the router. These map to
one of the router's own, globally-visible, IP addresses. one of the router's own, globally-visible, IP addresses.
Recursive Tunneling: when a packet has more than one LISP IP Recursive Tunneling: when a packet has more than one LISP IP
header. Additional layers of tunneling may be employed to header. Additional layers of tunneling may be employed to
implement traffic engineering or other re-routing as needed. When implement traffic engineering or other re-routing as needed. When
this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header is added and the this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header is added and the
original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" header. Any original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" header. Any
references to tunnels in this specification refers to dynamic references to tunnels in this specification refers to dynamic
encapsulating tunnels and never are they staticly configured. encapsulating tunnels and never are they statically configured.
Reencapsulating Tunnels: when a packet has no more than one LISP IP Reencapsulating Tunnels: when a packet has no more than one LISP IP
header (two IP headers total) and when it needs to be diverted to header (two IP headers total) and when it needs to be diverted to
new RLOC, an ETR can decapsulate the packet (remove the LISP new RLOC, an ETR can decapsulate the packet (remove the LISP
header) and prepend a new tunnel header, with new RLOC, on to the header) and prepends a new tunnel header, with new RLOC, on to the
packet. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the re- packet. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the re-
encapsulating router without adding the overhead of additional encapsulating router without adding the overhead of additional
tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels in this specification tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels in this specification
refers to dynamic encapsulating tunnels and never are they refers to dynamic encapsulating tunnels and never are they
staticly configured. statically configured.
LISP Header: a term used in this document to refer to the outer LISP Header: a term used in this document to refer to the outer
IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP header, an ITR IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP header, an ITR
prepends or an ETR strips. prepends or an ETR strips.
Address Family Indicator (AFI): a term used to describe an address Address Family Indicator (AFI): a term used to describe an address
encoding in a packet. An address family currently pertains to an encoding in a packet. An address family currently pertains to an
IPv4 or IPv6 address. See [AFI] for details. IPv4 or IPv6 address. See [AFI] for details.
Negative Mapping Entry: also known as a negative cache entry, is an Negative Mapping Entry: also known as a negative cache entry, is an
skipping to change at page 12, line 22 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). Most routers along a path referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). Most routers along a path
between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/ between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/
forwarding lookups on the destination addresses. For routers between forwarding lookups on the destination addresses. For routers between
the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the
destination host, the destination address is an EID. For the routers destination host, the destination address is an EID. For the routers
between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC. between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.
This design introduces "Tunnel Routers", which prepend LISP headers This design introduces "Tunnel Routers", which prepends LISP headers
on host-originated packets and strip them prior to final delivery to on host-originated packets and strip them prior to final delivery to
their destination. The IP addresses in this "outer header" are their destination. The IP addresses in this "outer header" are
RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange between two Internet hosts, RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange between two Internet hosts,
an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each packet and an egress tunnel an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each packet and an egress tunnel
router strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to-RLOC lookups router strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to-RLOC lookups
to determine the routing path to the the ETR, which has the RLOC as to determine the routing path to the the ETR, which has the RLOC as
one of its IP addresses. one of its IP addresses.
Some basic rules governing LISP are: Some basic rules governing LISP are:
skipping to change at page 17, line 24 skipping to change at page 17, line 24
OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source Routing Locator | | | Source Routing Locator |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination Routing Locator | \ | Destination Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 | / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L / | Locator Reach Bits | L |N|L|E| rflags | Nonce |
I +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S \ |S|E| rsvd-flags| Nonce | S / | Locator Status Bits |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | / |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source EID | | | Source EID |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination EID | \ | Destination EID |
skipping to change at page 18, line 34 skipping to change at page 18, line 34
| | | |
^ + Destination Routing Locator + ^ + Destination Routing Locator +
| | | | | |
\ + + \ + +
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 | / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L / | Locator Reach Bits | L |N|L|E| rflags | Nonce |
I +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S \ |S|E| rsvd-flags| Nonce | S / | Locator Status Bits |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | / |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | / | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
I + + I + +
n | | n | |
n + Source EID + n + Source EID +
e | | e | |
skipping to change at page 19, line 14 skipping to change at page 19, line 14
r + + r + +
| | | |
^ + Destination EID + ^ + Destination EID +
\ | | \ | |
\ + + \ + +
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
IH Header: is the inner header, preserved from the datagram received Inner Header: is the inner header, preserved from the datagram
from the originating host. The source and destination IP received from the originating host. The source and destination IP
addresses are EIDs. addresses are EIDs.
OH Header: is the outer header prepended by an ITR. The address Outer Header: is the outer header prepended by an ITR. The address
fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress router's EID-to- fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress router's EID-to-
RLOC cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" from [RFC0768]. RLOC cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" from [RFC0768].
The DF bit of the Flags field is set to 0. The DF bit of the Flags field is set to 0 when the method in
Section 5.4.1 is used and set to 1 when the method in
Section 5.4.2 is used.
UDP Header: contains a ITR selected source port when encapsulating a UDP Header: contains a ITR selected source port when encapsulating a
packet. See Section 6.4 for details on the hash algorithm used packet. See Section 6.4 for details on the hash algorithm used
select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the inner header. select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the inner header.
The destination port MUST be set to the well-known IANA assigned The destination port MUST be set to the well-known IANA assigned
port value 4341. port value 4341.
UDP Checksum: this field MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on UDP Checksum: this field SHOULD be transmitted as zero by an ITR for
receipt by the ETR. Note, even when the UDP checksum is either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 encapsulation [UDP-TUNNELS]. When a
transmitted as 0 an intervening NAT device can recalculate the packet with a zero UDP checksum is received by an ETR, the ETR
checksum and rewrite the UDP checksum field to non-zero. For MUST accept the packet for decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a
performance reasons, the ETR MUST ignore the checksum and MUST not non-zero value for the UDP checksum, it MUST send a correctly
do a checksum computation. computed value in this field. When an ETR receives a packet with
a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY choose to verify the checksum
value. If it chooses to perform such verification, and the
verification fails, the packet MUST be silently dropped. If the
ETR chooses not to perform the verification, or performs the
verification successfully, the packet MUST be accepted for
decapsulation. The handling of UDP checksums for all tunneling
protocols, including LISP, is under active discussion within the
IETF. When that discussion concludes, any necessary changes will
be made to align LISP with the outcome of the broader discussion.
UDP Length: for an IPv4 encapsulated packet, the inner header Total UDP Length: for an IPv4 encapsulated packet, the inner header Total
Length plus the UDP and LISP header lengths are used. For an IPv6 Length plus the UDP and LISP header lengths are used. For an IPv6
encapsulated packet, the inner header Payload Length plus the size encapsulated packet, the inner header Payload Length plus the size
of the IPv6 header (40 bytes) plus the size of the UDP and LISP of the IPv6 header (40 bytes) plus the size of the UDP and LISP
headers are used. The UDP header length is 8 bytes. The LISP headers are used. The UDP header length is 8 bytes.
header length is 8 bytes when no loc-reach-bit header extensions
are used.
LISP Locator Reach Bits: in the LISP header are set by an ITR to N: this is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1, the
indicate to an ETR the reachability of the Locators in the source low-order 24-bits of the first 32-bits of the LISP header contains
site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal value from a Nonce. See section Section 6.3.1 for details.
0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry). The Locator
Reach Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the right significant
bit of the 32-bit field. When a bit is set to 1, the ITR is
indicating to the ETR the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal is
reachable. See Section 6.3 for details on how an ITR can
determine other ITRs at the site are reachable. When a site has
multiple EID-prefixes which result in multiple mappings (where
each could have a different locator-set), the Locator Reach Bits
setting in an encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the
EID-prefix that the inner-header source EID address matches.
S: this is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See section L: this is the Locator-Status-Bits field enabled bit. When this bit
Section 6.5.2 for details. is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second 32-bits of the
LISP header are in use.
E: this is the echo-nonce-request bit. See section Section 6.3.1 for E: this is the echo-nonce-request bit. When this bit is set to 1,
the N bit must be 1. This bit should be ignored and has no
meaning when the N bit is set to 0. See section Section 6.3.1 for
details. details.
rsvd-flags: this 6-bit field is reserved for future flag use. It is rflags: this 4-bit field is reserved for future flag use. It is set
set to 0 on transmit and ignored on receipt. to 0 on transmit and ignored on receipt.
LISP Nonce: is a 24-bit value that is randomly generated by an ITR. LISP Nonce: is a 24-bit value that is randomly generated by an ITR
The nonce is also used when the E-bit is set to request the nonce when the N-bit is set to 1. The nonce is also used when the E-bit
value to be echoed by the other side when packets are returned. is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the other side
See section Section 6.3.1 for more details. The nonce is also when packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but the N-bit
used when SMR-bit is set to solicit the other side to send a Map- is set, an ITR is either echoing a previously requested echo-nonce
Request containing this nonce. See section Section 6.5.2 for or providing a random nonce. See section Section 6.3.1 for more
details. details.
LISP Locator Status Bits: in the LISP header are set by an ITR to
indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
The Locator Status Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
significant bit of the 32-bit field. When a bit is set to 1, the
ITR is indicating to the ETR the RLOC associated with the bit
ordinal has up status. See Section 6.3 for details on how an ITR
can determine other ITRs at the site are reachable. When a site
has multiple EID-prefixes which result in multiple mappings (where
each could have a different locator-set), the Locator Status Bits
setting in an encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the
EID-prefix that the inner-header source EID address matches.
When doing Recursive Tunneling or ITR/PTR encapsulation: When doing Recursive Tunneling or ITR/PTR encapsulation:
o The OH header Time to Live field (or Hop Limit field, in case of o The outer header Time to Live field (or Hop Limit field, in case
IPv6) MUST be copied from the IH header Time to Live field. of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner header Time to Live
field.
o The OH header Type of Service field (or the Traffic Class field, o The outer header Type of Service field (or the Traffic Class
in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the IH header Type of field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner header
Service field (with one caveat, see below). Type of Service field (with one caveat, see below).
When doing Re-encapsulated Tunneling: When doing Re-encapsulated Tunneling:
o The new OH header Time to Live field SHOULD be copied from the o The new outer header Time to Live field SHOULD be copied from the
stripped OH header Time to Live field. stripped outer header Time to Live field.
o The new OH header Type of Service field SHOULD be copied from the o The new outer header Type of Service field SHOULD be copied from
stripped OH header Type of Service field (with one caveat, see the stripped OH header Type of Service field (with one caveat, see
below).. below).
Copying the TTL serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance Copying the TTL serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance
the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly,
it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is
a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.
The ECN field occupies bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 Type of Service The ECN field occupies bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 Type of Service
field and the IPv6 Traffic Class field [RFC3168]. The ECN field field and the IPv6 Traffic Class field [RFC3168]. The ECN field
requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications
of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit ECN of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit ECN
skipping to change at page 22, line 36 skipping to change at page 23, line 6
5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling 5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is describe as follows An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is describe as follows
and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]: and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]:
1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each locator per 1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each locator per
mapping cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network mapping cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network
can deliver along the path between ITR and ETR. can deliver along the path between ITR and ETR.
2. When an IPv6 encapsulated packet or an IPv4 encapsulated packet 2. When an IPv6 encapsulated packet or an IPv4 encapsulated packet
with DF bit set to 0, exceeds what the core network can deliver, with DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can deliver,
one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an ICMP Too one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an ICMP Too
Big message to the ITR. The ITR will parse the ICMP message to Big message to the ITR. The ITR will parse the ICMP message to
determine which locator is affected by the effective MTU change determine which locator is affected by the effective MTU change
and then record the new effective MTU value in the mapping cache and then record the new effective MTU value in the mapping cache
entry. entry.
3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the 3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
stored with the mapping cache entry associated with the stored with the mapping cache entry associated with the
destination EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Too destination EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Too
skipping to change at page 26, line 26 skipping to change at page 26, line 26
LISP-CONS Push-Delete Message: 10 b'1010' LISP-CONS Push-Delete Message: 10 b'1010'
LISP-CONS Unreachable Message 11 b'1011' LISP-CONS Unreachable Message 11 b'1011'
6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format 6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=1 |A|M|P|S| Reserved | Record Count | |Type=1 |A|M|P|S| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | ITR-AFI | | Source-EID-AFI | ITR-AFI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source EID Address ... | | Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Originating ITR RLOC Address ... | | Originating ITR RLOC Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-prefix-AFI | / | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-prefix-AFI |
Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-prefix ... | \ | EID-prefix ... |
skipping to change at page 27, line 16 skipping to change at page 27, line 16
A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map- A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map-
Requests sent by an ITR. Requests sent by an ITR.
M: When set, it indicates a Map-Reply Record segment is included in M: When set, it indicates a Map-Reply Record segment is included in
the Map-Request. the Map-Request.
P: Indicates that a Map-Request should be treated as a "piggyback" P: Indicates that a Map-Request should be treated as a "piggyback"
locator reachability probe. The receiver should respond with a locator reachability probe. The receiver should respond with a
Map-Reply with the P bit set and the nonce copied from the Map- Map-Reply with the P bit set and the nonce copied from the Map-
Request. Details on this usage will be provided in a future Request. See section Section 6.3.2 for more details.
version of this draft.
S: This is the SMR bit. See Section 6.5.2 for details. S: This is the SMR bit. See Section 6.5.2 for details.
Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt. Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Record Count: The number of records in this request message. A Record Count: The number of records in this Map-Request message. A
record is comprised of the portion of the packet is labeled 'Rec' record is comprised of the portion of the packet that is labeled
above and occurs the number of times equal to Record count. 'Rec' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record Count.
For this version of the protocol, a receiver MUST accept and
process Map-Requests that contain one or more records, but a
sender MUST only send Map-Requests containing one record. Support
for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request message will
be specified in a future version of the protocol.
Nonce: A 4-byte random value created by the sender of the Map- Nonce: An 8-byte random value created by the sender of the Map-
Request. This nonce will be returned in the Map-Reply. Request. This nonce will be returned in the Map-Reply. The
security of the LISP mapping protocol depends critically on the
strength of the nonce in the Map-Request message. The nonce
SHOULD be generated by a properly seeded pseudo-random (or strong
random) source. See [RFC4086] for advice on generating security-
sensitive random data.
Source-EID-AFI: Address family of the "Source EID Address" field. Source-EID-AFI: Address family of the "Source EID Address" field.
ITR-AFI: Address family of the "Originating ITR RLOC Address" field. ITR-AFI: Address family of the "Originating ITR RLOC Address" field.
Source EID Address: This is the EID of the source host which Source EID Address: This is the EID of the source host which
originated the packet which is invoking this Map-Request. originated the packet which is invoking this Map-Request.
Originating ITR RLOC Address: Used to give the ETR the option of Originating ITR RLOC Address: Used to give the ETR the option of
returning a Map-Reply in the address-family of this locator. returning a Map-Reply in the address-family of this locator.
skipping to change at page 28, line 6 skipping to change at page 28, line 18
address-family. When a Map-Request is sent by an ITR because a address-family. When a Map-Request is sent by an ITR because a
data packet is received for a destination where there is no data packet is received for a destination where there is no
mapping entry, the EID-prefix is set to the destination IP address mapping entry, the EID-prefix is set to the destination IP address
of the data packet. And the 'EID mask-len' is set to 32 or 128 of the data packet. And the 'EID mask-len' is set to 32 or 128
for IPv4 or IPv6, respectively. When an xTR wants to query a site for IPv4 or IPv6, respectively. When an xTR wants to query a site
about the status of a mapping it already has cached, the EID- about the status of a mapping it already has cached, the EID-
prefix used in the Map-Request has the same mask-length as the prefix used in the Map-Request has the same mask-length as the
EID-prefix returned from the site when it sent a Map-Reply EID-prefix returned from the site when it sent a Map-Reply
message. message.
Map-Reply Record: When the R bit is set, this field is the size of Map-Reply Record: When the M bit is set, this field is the size of
the "Record" field in the Map-Reply format. This Map-Reply record the "Record" field in the Map-Reply format. This Map-Reply record
contains the EID-to-RLOC mapping entry associated with the Source contains the EID-to-RLOC mapping entry associated with the Source
EID. This allows the ETR which will receive this Map-Request to EID. This allows the ETR which will receive this Map-Request to
cache the data if it chooses to do so. cache the data if it chooses to do so.
Mapping Protocol Data: See [CONS] or [ALT] for details. This field Mapping Protocol Data: See [CONS] or [ALT] for details. This field
is optional and present when the UDP length indicates there is is optional and present when the UDP length indicates there is
enough space in the packet to include it. enough space in the packet to include it.
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message 6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message
skipping to change at page 29, line 5 skipping to change at page 28, line 52
Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination port Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination port
4341 when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver. Likewise, Map-Requests 4341 when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver. Likewise, Map-Requests
are LISP encapsulated the same way from a Map-Server to an ETR. are LISP encapsulated the same way from a Map-Server to an ETR.
Details on encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be found Details on encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be found
in [LISP-MS]. in [LISP-MS].
Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is recommended that a Map- Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is recommended that a Map-
Request for the same EID-prefix be sent no more than once per second. Request for the same EID-prefix be sent no more than once per second.
An ITR that is configured with mapping database information (i.e. it
is also an ETR) may optionally include those mappings in a Map-
Request. When an ETR configured to accept and verify such
"piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request, it may
originate a "verifying Map-Request", addressed to the original ITR.
If the ETR has a map-cache entry that matches the "piggybacked" EID
and the RLOC is in the locator-set for the entry, then it may send
the "verifying Map-Request" to the original Map-Request source. If
not, then it MUST send it to the "piggybacked" EID. Doing this
forces the "verifying Map-Request" to go through the mapping database
system to reach the authoritative source of information about that
EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing in in the "piggybacked" mapping
data.
6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format 6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=2 |P| Reserved | Record Count | |Type=2 |P|E| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL | | | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len |A| ACT | Reserved | R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Reserved | EID-AFI | c | Reserved | EID-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-prefix | r | EID-prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mapping Protocol Data | | Mapping Protocol Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 2 (Map-Reply) Type: 2 (Map-Reply)
P: Indicates that the Map-Reply is in response to a "piggyback" P: Indicates that the Map-Reply is in response to a "piggyback"
locator reachability Map-Request. The nonce field should contain locator reachability Map-Request. The nonce field should contain
a copy of the nonce value from the original Map-Request. Details a copy of the nonce value from the original Map-Request. See
on this usage will be provided in a future version of this draft. section Section 6.3.2 for more details.
E: Indicates that the ETR which sends this Map-Reply message is
advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce locator
reachability algorithm. See Section 6.3.1 for more details.
Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt. Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Record Count: The number of records in this reply message. A record Record Count: The number of records in this reply message. A record
is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record' above is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record' above
and occurs the number of times equal to Record count. and occurs the number of times equal to Record count.
Nonce: A 4-byte value set in a Data-Probe packet or a Map-Request Nonce: A 24-bit value set in a Data-Probe packet or a 64-bit value
that is echoed here in the Map-Reply. from the Map-Request is echoed in this Nonce field of the Map-
Reply.
Record TTL: The time in minutes the recipient of the Map-Reply will Record TTL: The time in minutes the recipient of the Map-Reply will
store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry should be removed store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry should be removed
from the cache immediately. If the value is 0xffffffff, the from the cache immediately. If the value is 0xffffffff, the
recipient can decide locally how long to store the mapping. recipient can decide locally how long to store the mapping.
Locator Count: The number of Locator entries. A locator entry Locator Count: The number of Locator entries. A locator entry
comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The locator count can comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The locator count can
be 0 indicating there are no locators for the EID-prefix. be 0 indicating there are no locators for the EID-prefix.
EID mask-len: Mask length for EID prefix. EID mask-len: Mask length for EID prefix.
A: The Authoritative bit, when sent by a UDP-based message is always
set by the ETR. See [CONS] for TCP-based Map-Replies.
ACT: This 3-bit field describes negative Map-Reply actions. These ACT: This 3-bit field describes negative Map-Reply actions. These
bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field is set to 0. bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field is set to 0.
The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply messages. The The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply messages. The
actions defined are used by an ITR or PTR when a destination EID actions defined are used by an ITR or PTR when a destination EID
matches a negative mapping cache entry. The current assigned matches a negative mapping cache entry. The current assigned
values are: values are:
(0) No action: No action is being conveyed by the sender of the (0) No action: No action is being conveyed by the sender of the
Map-Reply message. Map-Reply message.
(1) Natively-Forward: The packet is not encapsulated or dropped (1) Natively-Forward: The packet is not encapsulated or dropped
but natively forwarded. but natively forwarded.
(2) Drop: The packet is dropped silently. (2) Drop: The packet is dropped silently.
(3) Send-Map-Request: The packet invokes sending a Map-Request. (3) Send-Map-Request: The packet invokes sending a Map-Request.
A: The Authoritative bit, when sent by a UDP-based message is always
set by the ETR. See [CONS] for TCP-based Map-Replies.
EID-AFI: Address family of EID-prefix according to [RFC2434]. EID-AFI: Address family of EID-prefix according to [RFC2434].
EID-prefix: 4 bytes if an IPv4 address-family, 16 bytes if an IPv6 EID-prefix: 4 bytes if an IPv4 address-family, 16 bytes if an IPv6
address-family. address-family.
Priority: each RLOC is assigned a unicast priority. Lower values Priority: each RLOC is assigned a unicast priority. Lower values
are more preferable. When multiple RLOCs have the same priority, are more preferable. When multiple RLOCs have the same priority,
they may be used in a load-split fashion. A value of 255 means they may be used in a load-split fashion. A value of 255 means
the RLOC MUST NOT be used for unicast forwarding. the RLOC MUST NOT be used for unicast forwarding.
skipping to change at page 32, line 52 skipping to change at page 33, line 24
the Map-Reply. There are two primary applications for Negative Map- the Map-Reply. There are two primary applications for Negative Map-
Replies. The first is for a Map-Resolver to instruct an ITR or PTR Replies. The first is for a Map-Resolver to instruct an ITR or PTR
when a destination is for a LISP site versus a non-LISP site. And when a destination is for a LISP site versus a non-LISP site. And
the other is to source quench Map-Requests which are sent for non- the other is to source quench Map-Requests which are sent for non-
allocated EIDs. allocated EIDs.
For each Map-Reply record, the list of locators in a locator-set MUST For each Map-Reply record, the list of locators in a locator-set MUST
appear in the same order for each ETR that originates a Map-Reply appear in the same order for each ETR that originates a Map-Reply
message. The locator-set MUST be sorted in order of ascending IP message. The locator-set MUST be sorted in order of ascending IP
address where an IPv4 locator address is considered numerically 'less address where an IPv4 locator address is considered numerically 'less
than' an IPv6 locator addresss. than' an IPv6 locator address.
6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format 6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format
The usage details of the Map-Register message can be found in The usage details of the Map-Register message can be found in
specification [LISP-MS]. This section solely defines the message specification [LISP-MS]. This section solely defines the message
format. format.
The message is sent in a UDP with a destination UDP port 4342 and a The message is sent in a UDP with a destination UDP port 4342 and a
randomly selected UDP port number. Before an IPv4 or IPv6 network randomly selected UDP port number. Before an IPv4 or IPv6 network
layer header is prepended, an AH header is prepended to carry layer header is prepended, an AH header is prepended to carry
authentication information. The format conforms to the IPsec authentication information. The format conforms to the IPsec
specification [RFC2402]. The Map-Register message will use transport specification [RFC4302]. The Map-Register message will use transport
mode by setting the IP protocol number field or the IPv6 next-header mode by setting the IP protocol number field or the IPv6 next-header
field to 51. field to 51.
The AH header from [RFC2402] is: The AH header from [RFC4302] is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Payload Len | RESERVED | | Next Header | Payload Len | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Security Parameters Index (SPI) | | Security Parameters Index (SPI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number Field | | Sequence Number Field |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
+ Authentication Data (variable) | + Authentication Data (variable) |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Next Header field is set to UDP. The SPI field is set to 0 The Next Header field is set to UDP. The SPI field is set to 0
(since no Security Association or Key Exchange protocol is being (since no Security Association or Key Exchange protocol is being
used). The Sequence Number is a randomly chosen value by the sender. used). The Sequence Number is a randomly chosen value by the sender.
The Authentication Data is 16 bytes and holds a MD5 HMAC. The Authentication Data is 16 bytes and holds a SHA-1 or SHA-128
HMAC.
The Map-Register message format is: The Map-Register message format is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=3 |P| Reserved | Record Count | |Type=3 |P| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL | | | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len |A| ACT | Reserved | R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Reserved | EID-AFI | c | Reserved | EID-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-prefix | r | EID-prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
skipping to change at page 34, line 42 skipping to change at page 35, line 44
for the Map-Server to proxy Map-Reply. The Map-Server will send for the Map-Server to proxy Map-Reply. The Map-Server will send
non-authoritative Map-Replies on behalf of the ETR. Details on non-authoritative Map-Replies on behalf of the ETR. Details on
this usage will be provided in a future version of this draft. this usage will be provided in a future version of this draft.
Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt. Reserved: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Record Count: The number of records in this Map-Register message. A Record Count: The number of records in this Map-Register message. A
record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record' record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record'
above and occurs the number of times equal to Record count. above and occurs the number of times equal to Record count.
Nonce: The Nonce field is set to 0 in Map-Register messages. Nonce: This 8-byte Nonce field is set to 0 in Map-Register messages.
The definition of the rest of the Map-Register can be found in the The definition of the rest of the Map-Register can be found in the
Map-Reply section. Map-Reply section.
6.2. Routing Locator Selection 6.2. Routing Locator Selection
Both client-side and server-side may need control over the selection Both client-side and server-side may need control over the selection
of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is achieved by of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is achieved by
manipulating the Priority and Weight fields in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply manipulating the Priority and Weight fields in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply
messages. Alternatively, RLOC information may be gleaned from messages. Alternatively, RLOC information may be gleaned from
skipping to change at page 35, line 48 skipping to change at page 37, line 5
EID and the outer header source RLOC of received packets. The EID and the outer header source RLOC of received packets. The
client-side ITR controls how traffic is returned and can alternate client-side ITR controls how traffic is returned and can alternate
using an outer header source RLOC, which then can be added to the using an outer header source RLOC, which then can be added to the
list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no
Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server- Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server-
side ETR must assume each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best side ETR must assume each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best
Priority with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-prefix Priority with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-prefix
encoding cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC cache encoding cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC cache
on tunnel routers can grow to be very large. on tunnel routers can grow to be very large.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are considered o A "gleaned" map-cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a
reachable. The Map-Reply and the database mapping service does not received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few
provide any reachability status for Locators. This is done outside seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by
of the mapping service. See next section for details. sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner header IP
source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to
this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the map-
cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the
time indicated from the TTL field of a received Map-Reply. When a
verified map-cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs
for subsequent packets which have a source EID that matches the
EID-prefix of the verified entry.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
reachable when the R-bit for the locator record is set to 1. Neither
the information contained in a Map-Reply or that stored in the
mapping database system provide reachability information for RLOCs.
Such reachability needs to be determined separately, using one or
more of the Routing Locator Reachability Algorithms described in the
next section.
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability 6.3. Routing Locator Reachability
There are 4 methods for determining when a Locator is either Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently
reachable or has become unreachable: defined:
1. Locator reachability is determined by an ETR by examining the 1. An ETR may examine the Loc-Status-Bits in the LISP header of an
Loc-Reach-Bits from a LISP header of a encapsulated data packet encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is
which is provided by an ITR when an ITR encapsulates data. also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
RLOC.
2. Locator unreachability is determined by an ITR by receiving ICMP 2. An ITR may receive an ICMP Network or ICMP Host Unreachable
Network or Host Unreachable messages. message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that the RLOC is
likely down.
3. Locator unreachability can also be determined by an BGP-enabled 3. An ITR which participates in the global routing system can
ITR when there is no prefix matching a Locator address from the determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP RIB route exists that
BGP RIB. matches the RLOC IP address.
4. Locator unreachability is determined when a host sends an ICMP 4. An ITR may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a
Port Unreachable message. This occurs when an ITR may not use destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use
any methods of interworking. one which is describe in [INTERWORK] interworking [INTERWORK] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
and the encapsulated data packet is received by a host at the non-LISP-capable site.
destination non-LISP site.
5. Locator reachability is determined by receiving a Map-Reply 5. An ITR may receive a Map-Reply from a ETR in response to a
message from a ETR's Locator address in response to a previously previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is
sent Map-Request. likely up since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the
ITR.
6. Locator reachability can also be determined by receiving packets 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
encapsulated by the ITR assigned to the locator address. source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up.
When determining Locator reachability by examining the Loc-Reach-Bits 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator Reachability Algorithms
from the LISP encapsulate data packet, an ETR will receive up to date described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing.
status from the ITR closest to the Locators at the source site. The
ITRs at the source site can determine reachability when running their
IGP at the site. When the ITRs are deployed on CE routers, typically
a default route is injected into the site's IGP from each of the
ITRs. If an ITR goes down, the CE-PE link goes down, or the PE
router goes down, the CE router withdraws the default route. This
allows the other ITRs at the site to determine one of the Locators
has gone unreachable.
The Locators listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the Loc-
n-1. The Loc-Reach-Bits in a LISP Data Message are numbered from 0 Status-Bits from the LISP encapsulated data packet, an ETR will
to n-1 starting with the least significant bit numbered as 0. So, receive up to date status from an encapsulating ITR about
for example, if the ITR with locator listed as the 3rd Locator reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
position in the Map-Reply goes down, all other ITRs at the site will site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
have the 3rd bit from the right cleared (the bit that corresponds to IGP as follows:
ordinal 2).
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will look for a change in the o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
Loc-Reach-Bits value. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR will route into the site IGP.
refrain from encapsulating packets to the Locator that has just gone
unreachable. It can start using the Locator again when the bit that o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its
corresponds to the Locator goes from 0 to 1. Loc-Reach-Bits are default route will either time-out or be withdrawn.
associated with a locator-set per EID-prefix. Therefore, when a
locator becomes unreachable, the loc-reach-bit that corresponds to Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
that locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply originated by the others to determine the Locator Status Bits it sets
will be set to zero for that particular EID-prefix. for them.
RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The
Loc-Status-Bits in a LISP encapsulated packet are numbered from 0 to
n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an RLOC
listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal value
2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least significant
bit (xxxx x0xx) of the Loc-Status-Bits field for the packets they
encapsulate.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in
the Loc-Status-Bits field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR will
refrain from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as
down. It will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding Loc-
Status-Bit returns to a value of 1. Loc-Status-Bits are associated
with a locator-set per EID-prefix. Therefore, when a locator becomes
unreachable, the Loc-Status-Bit that corresponds to that locator's
position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to
zero for that particular EID-prefix.
When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
still be used to determine the reachability of Locators provided they still be used to determine the reachability of Locators provided they
are injected a stub links into the IGP. This is typically done when are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 address
a /32 address is configured on a loopback interface. is configured on a loopback interface.
When ITRs receive ICMP Network or Host Unreachable messages as a When ITRs receive ICMP Network or Host Unreachable messages as a
method to determine unreachability, they will refrain from using method to determine unreachability, they will refrain from using
Locators which are described in Locator lists of Map-Replies. Locators which are described in Locator lists of Map-Replies.
However, using this approach is unreliable because many network However, using this approach is unreliable because many network
operators turn off generation of ICMP Unreachable messages. operators turn off generation of ICMP Unreachable messages.
If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network or Host Unreachable message, If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network or Host Unreachable message,
it MAY originate its own ICMP Unreachable message destined for the it MAY originate its own ICMP Unreachable message destined for the
host that originated the data packet the ITR encapsulated. host that originated the data packet the ITR encapsulated.
Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the BGP RIB to see if Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the BGP RIB to see if
a locator address from a locator-set in a mapping entry matches a a locator address from a locator-set in a mapping entry matches a
prefix. If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default prefix. If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default
Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the locator even though the Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the locator even though the
Loc-Reach-Bits indicate the locator is up. In this case, the path Loc-Status-Bits indicate the locator is up. In this case, the path
from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the locator is not from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the locator is not
available. More details are in [LOC-ID-ARCH]. available. More details are in [LOC-ID-ARCH].
Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator and if a Map- Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator and if a Map-
Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined. Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined.
Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control
messages originated by tunnel routers for active flows, so Locators messages originated by tunnel routers for active flows, so Locators
are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised. are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised.
This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is
skipping to change at page 38, line 10 skipping to change at page 39, line 41
The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by
sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate- sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate-
limited. Locator reachability testing is never done with data limited. Locator reachability testing is never done with data
packets since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end packets since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end
sessions. sessions.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from
the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In
most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to
be true due to the possibility of path assymetry. In the presence of be true due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of
unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR should not unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR should not
use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is
unreachable. Instead, it must use an alternate mechanisms to unreachable. Instead, it must use an alternate mechanisms to
determine reachability. determine reachability.
6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm 6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm
When there is bidirectional data flow between a pair of locators, a When there is bidirectional data flow between a pair of locators, a
simple mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to determine simple mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to determine
reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to solicit a reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to solicit a
nonce echo, it sets the E-bit and places a 24-bit nonce in the LISP nonce echo, it sets the N and E bits and places a 24-bit nonce in the
header of the next encapsulated data packet. LISP header of the next encapsulated data packet.
When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is
forwarded as normal. When the ETR next sends a data packet to the forwarded as normal. When the ETR next sends a data packet to the
ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the E-bit cleared. ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N bit set and E
The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows the path to and from the bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows the path to
ETR is up. and from the ETR is up.
The ITR will set the E-bit for every packet it sends while in echo- The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process the echoed in echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process the
nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is variable and a echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is variable
choice left for the implementation. and a choice left for the implementation.
If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the
nonce echoed while being in echo-nonce-request state, then the path nonce echoed while being in echo-nonce-request state, then the path
to the ETR is unreachable. This decision may be overridden by other to the ETR is unreachable. This decision may be overridden by other
locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines the path to locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines the path to
the ETR is down it can switch to another locator for that EID-prefix. the ETR is down it can switch to another locator for that EID-prefix.
Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices must Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices must
be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce
mechanism to operate. mechanism to operate.
skipping to change at page 39, line 11 skipping to change at page 40, line 41
when an ITR is in echo-nonce-request state, it can echo the ETR's when an ITR is in echo-nonce-request state, it can echo the ETR's
nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and then nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and then
subsequently, continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. subsequently, continue sending echo-nonce-request packets.
This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path
reachability problem as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the reachability problem as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the
ETR receiving traffic at a site may not may not be the same device as ETR receiving traffic at a site may not may not be the same device as
an ITR which transmits traffic from that site or the site to site an ITR which transmits traffic from that site or the site to site
traffic is unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. traffic is unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.
The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the
E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the
echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
regard the locator unreachable erroneously. An ITR should only set
the E-bit in a encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is
enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map-
Reply message.
Note that other locator reachability mechanisms are being researched Note that other locator reachability mechanisms are being researched
and can be used to compliment or even override the Echo Nonce and can be used to compliment or even override the Echo Nonce
Algorithm. Algorithm. See next section for an example of control-plane probing.
6.3.2. RLOC Probing Algorithm
RLOC Probing is a method that an ITR or PTR can use to determine the
reachability status of one or more locators that it has cached in a
map-cache entry. The P-bit (Probe Bit) of the Map-Request and Map-
Reply messages are used for RLOC Probing.
RLOC probing is done in the control-plane on a timer basis where an
ITR or PTR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator address
from one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as an
RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or on the
ALT like one would when soliciting mapping data. The EID record
encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-prefix of the map-cache entry
cached by the ITR or PTR. The ITR or PTR may include a mapping data
record for its own database mapping information.
When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the P-bit set, it
returns a Map-Reply with the P-bit set. The source address of the
Map-Reply is set from the destination address of the Map-Request and
the destination address of the Map-Reply is set from the source
address of the Map-Request. The Map-Reply should contain mapping
data for the EID-prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides
the opportunity for the ITR or PTR, which sent the RLOC-probe to get
mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping
entries.
There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC Probing. The greatest
benefit of RLOC Probing is that it can handle many failure scenarios
allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific locator is
reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust
mechanism for switching to using another locator from the cached
locator. RLOC Probing can also provide RTT estimates between a pair
of locators which can be useful for network management purposes as
well as for selecting low delay paths. The major disadvantage of
RLOC Probing is in the number of control messages required and the
amount of bandwidth used to obtain those benefits, especially if the
requirement for failure detection times are very small.
Continued research and testing will attempt to characterize the
tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message overhead.
6.4. Routing Locator Hashing 6.4. Routing Locator Hashing
When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to
a requesting ITR, the locator-set for the EID-prefix may contain a requesting ITR, the locator-set for the EID-prefix may contain
different priority values for each locator address. When more than different priority values for each locator address. When more than
one best priority locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load one best priority locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load
share traffic against the corresponding locators. share traffic against the corresponding locators.
The following hash algorithm may be used by an ITR to select a The following hash algorithm may be used by an ITR to select a
skipping to change at page 40, line 5 skipping to change at page 42, line 34
Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number
in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a random value in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a random value
allows core routers which are attached to Link Aggregation Groups allows core routers which are attached to Link Aggregation Groups
(LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of
such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since
packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets which are packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets which are
originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting
for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash
function on the inner header, as described above. function on the inner header, as described above.
Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation.
6.5. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 6.5. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to- store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not
know when the mappings change and the ETRs do not keep track of who know when the mappings change and the ETRs do not keep track of who
requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, we want to maintain requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, we want to maintain
this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs change their this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs change their
mappings and inform the sites that are currently communicating with mappings and inform the sites that are currently communicating with
the ETR site using such mappings. the ETR site using such mappings.
When a locator record is added to the end of a locator-set, it is When a locator record is added to the end of a locator-set, it is
easy to update mappings. We assume new mappings will maintain the easy to update mappings. We assume new mappings will maintain the
same locator ordering as the old mapping but just have new locators same locator ordering as the old mapping but just have new locators
appended to the end of the list. So some ITRs can have a new mapping appended to the end of the list. So some ITRs can have a new mapping
while other ITRs have only an old mapping that is used until they while other ITRs have only an old mapping that is used until they
time out. When an ITR has only an old mapping but detects bits set time out. When an ITR has only an old mapping but detects bits set
in the loc-reach-bits that correspond to locators beyond the list it in the loc-status-bits that correspond to locators beyond the list it
has cached, it simply ignores them. has cached, it simply ignores them.
When a locator record is removed from a locator-set, ITRs that have When a locator record is removed from a locator-set, ITRs that have
the mapping cached will not use the removed locator because the xTRs the mapping cached will not use the removed locator because the xTRs
will set the loc-reach-bit to 0. So even if the locator is in the will set the loc-status-bit to 0. So even if the locator is in the
list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs can list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs can
set the locator address to 0 as well as setting the corresponding set the locator address to 0 as well as setting the corresponding
loc-reach-bit to 0. This forces ITRs with old or new mappings to loc-status-bit to 0. This forces ITRs with old or new mappings to
avoid using the removed locator. avoid using the removed locator.
If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one
will find empty record slots in the middle of the locator-set and new will find empty record slots in the middle of the locator-set and new
records appended to the locator-set. At some point, it would be records appended to the locator-set. At some point, it would be
useful to compact the locator-set so the loc-reach-bit settings can useful to compact the locator-set so the loc-status-bit settings can
be efficiently packed. be efficiently packed.
We propose here two approaches for locator-set compaction, one We propose here two approaches for locator-set compaction, one
operational and the other a protocol mechanism. The operational operational and the other a protocol mechanism. The operational
approach uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approach uses the approach uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approach uses the
concept of Solicit-Map-Requests. concept of Solicit-Map-Requests.
6.5.1. Clock Sweep 6.5.1. Clock Sweep
The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of
skipping to change at page 41, line 38 skipping to change at page 44, line 24
Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update
the mappings they have cached. the mappings they have cached.
Since the xTRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their Since the xTRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their
mappings, they can not tell exactly who needs the new mapping mappings, they can not tell exactly who needs the new mapping
entries. So an xTR will solicit Map-Requests from sites it is entries. So an xTR will solicit Map-Requests from sites it is
currently sending encapsulated data to, and only from those sites. currently sending encapsulated data to, and only from those sites.
The xTRs can locally decide the algorithm for how often and to how The xTRs can locally decide the algorithm for how often and to how
many sites it sends SMR messages. many sites it sends SMR messages.
An SMR message is simply a bit set in an encapsulated data packet An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message. An ITR
(and a Map-Request message). When an ETR at a remote site or PTR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message.
decapsulates a data packet that has the SMR bit set, it can tell that Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder must rate-limited
a new Map-Request message is being solicited. Both the xTR that these messages.
sends the SMR message and the site that acts on the SMR message MUST
be rate-limited.
The following procedure shows how a SMR exchange occurs when a site The following procedure shows how a SMR exchange occurs when a site
is doing locator-set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping: is doing locator-set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping:
1. When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ITRs at the site 1. When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ETRs at the site
begin to set the SMR bit in packets they encapsulate to the sites begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each locator
they communicate with. in each map-cache entry the ETR caches.
2. A remote xTR which decapsulates a packet with the SMR bit set 2. A remote xTR which receives the SMR message will schedule sending
will schedule sending a Map-Request message to the source locator a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR
address of the encapsulated packet. The nonce in the Map-Request message. A newly allocated random nonce is selected and the EID-
is copied from the nonce in the encapsulated data packet that has prefix uses is the one copied from the SMR message.
the SMR bit set.
3. The remote xTR retransmits the Map-Request slowly until it gets a 3. The remote xTR retransmits the Map-Request slowly until it gets a
Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping.
4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the 4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the
Map-Request with a Map-Reply message provided the Map-Request Map-Request with a Map-Reply message provided the Map-Request
nonce matches the nonce from the SMR. The Map-Reply messages nonce matches the nonce from the SMR. The Map-Reply messages
SHOULD be rate limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply SHOULD be rate limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply
implosion. implosion.
5. The ETRs, at the site with the changed mapping, records the fact 5. The ETRs, at the site with the changed mapping, records the fact
that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new
mapping data in the mapping cache entry for the remote site so mapping data in the mapping cache entry for the remote site so
the loc-reach-bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets the loc-status-bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets
going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending packets going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending SMR
with the SMR-bit set. messages.
For security reasons an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map-Replies. For security reasons an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map-Replies.
The nonce MUST be carried from SMR packet, into the resultant Map- The nonce MUST be carried from SMR packet, into the resultant Map-
Request, and then into Map-Reply to reduce spoofing attacks. Request, and then into Map-Reply to reduce spoofing attacks.
To avoid map-cache entry corruption by a third-party, a sender of an
SMR-based Map-Request must be verified. If an ITR receives an SMR-
based Map-Request and the source is not in the locator-set for the
stored map-cache entry, then the responding Map-Request MUST be sent
with an EID destination to the mapping database system. Since the
mapping database system is more secure to reach an authoritative ETR,
it will deliver the Map-Request to the authoritative source of the
mapping data.
7. Router Performance Considerations 7. Router Performance Considerations
LISP is designed to be very hardware-based forwarding friendly. By LISP is designed to be very hardware-based forwarding friendly. By
doing tunnel header prepending [RFC1955] and stripping instead of re- doing tunnel header prepending [RFC1955] and stripping instead of re-
writing addresses, existing hardware can support the forwarding model writing addresses, existing hardware can support the forwarding model
with little or no modification. Where modifications are required, with little or no modification. Where modifications are required,
they should be limited to re-programming existing hardware rather they should be limited to re-programming existing hardware rather
than requiring expensive design changes to hard-coded algorithms in than requiring expensive design changes to hard-coded algorithms in
silicon. silicon.
skipping to change at page 55, line 12 skipping to change at page 58, line 12
and Interworking with non-LISP sites is described in specification and Interworking with non-LISP sites is described in specification
[MLISP]. [MLISP].
12. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
It is believed that most of the security mechanisms will be part of It is believed that most of the security mechanisms will be part of
the mapping database service when using control plane procedures for the mapping database service when using control plane procedures for
obtaining EID-to-RLOC mappings. For data plane triggered mappings, obtaining EID-to-RLOC mappings. For data plane triggered mappings,
as described in this specification, protection is provided against as described in this specification, protection is provided against
ETR spoofing by using Return- Routability mechanisms evidenced by the ETR spoofing by using Return- Routability mechanisms evidenced by the
use of a 4-byte Nonce field in the LISP encapsulation header. The use of a 24-bit Nonce field in the LISP encapsulation header and a
nonce, coupled with the ITR accepting only solicited Map-Replies goes 64-bit Nonce field in the LISP control message. The nonce, coupled
a long way toward providing decent authentication. with the ITR accepting only solicited Map-Replies goes a long way
toward providing decent authentication.
LISP does not rely on a PKI infrastructure or a more heavy weight LISP does not rely on a PKI infrastructure or a more heavy weight
authentication system. These systems challenge the scalability of authentication system. These systems challenge the scalability of
LISP which was a primary design goal. LISP which was a primary design goal.
DoS attack prevention will depend on implementations rate-limiting DoS attack prevention will depend on implementations rate-limiting
Map-Requests and Map-Replies to the control plane as well as rate- Map-Requests and Map-Replies to the control plane as well as rate-
limiting the number of data-triggered Map-Replies. limiting the number of data-triggered Map-Replies.
To deal with map-cache exhaustion attempts in an ITR/PTR, the To deal with map-cache exhaustion attempts in an ITR/PTR, the
skipping to change at page 56, line 37 skipping to change at page 59, line 37
removing the more specific routes currently injected into the removing the more specific routes currently injected into the
global routing system for this purpose. global routing system for this purpose.
o Experiment with mobility to determine if both acceptable o Experiment with mobility to determine if both acceptable
convergence and session continuity properties can be scalably convergence and session continuity properties can be scalably
implemented to support both individual device roaming and site implemented to support both individual device roaming and site
service provider changes. service provider changes.
Here is a rough set of milestones: Here is a rough set of milestones:
1. This draft will be the draft for interoperable implementations to 1. Interoperable implementations have been available since the
code against. Interoperable implementations will be ready beginning of 2009. We are trying to converge on a packet format
beginning of 2009. so implementations can converge on the -04 and later drafts.
2. Continue pilot deployment using LISP-ALT as the database mapping 2. Continue pilot deployment using LISP-ALT as the database mapping
mechanism. mechanism.
3. Continue prototyping and studying other database lookup schemes, 3. Continue prototyping and studying other database lookup schemes,
be it DNS, DHTs, CONS, ALT, NERD, or other mechanisms. be it DNS, DHTs, CONS, ALT, NERD, or other mechanisms.
4. Implement the LISP Multicast draft [MLISP]. 4. Implement the LISP Multicast draft [MLISP].
5. Implement the LISP Mobile Node draft [LISP-MN]. 5. Implement the LISP Mobile Node draft [LISP-MN].
skipping to change at page 58, line 19 skipping to change at page 61, line 19
and used daily to debug and test the LISP pilot network. See and used daily to debug and test the LISP pilot network. See
[LIG] for details. [LIG] for details.
12. A Linux implementation of LIG has been made available and 12. A Linux implementation of LIG has been made available and
supported by Dave Meyer. It can be run on any Linux system supported by Dave Meyer. It can be run on any Linux system
which resides in either a LISP site or non-LISP site. See [LIG] which resides in either a LISP site or non-LISP site. See [LIG]
for details. Public domain code can be downloaded from for details. Public domain code can be downloaded from
http://github.com/davidmeyer/lig/tree/master. http://github.com/davidmeyer/lig/tree/master.
13. An experimental implementation has been written for three 13. An experimental implementation has been written for three
locator reachability algorithms. One is called echo-noncing, locator reachability algorithms. Two are the Echo-Noncing and
which is documented in this specification. The other two are RLOC-Probing algorithms which are documented in this
called TCP-counts and RLOC-probing, which will be documented in specification. The third is called TCP-counts which will be
future drafts. documented in future drafts.
14. The LISP pilot network has been converted from using MD5 HMAC
authentication for Map-Register messages to SHA-1 HMAC
authentication. ETRs send with SHA-1 but Map-Servers can
received from either for compatibility purposes.
If interested in writing a LISP implementation, testing any of the If interested in writing a LISP implementation, testing any of the
LISP implementations, or want to be part of the LISP pilot program, LISP implementations, or want to be part of the LISP pilot program,
please contact lisp@ietf.org. please contact lisp@ietf.org.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
skipping to change at page 59, line 24 skipping to change at page 62, line 24
[RFC1498] Saltzer, J., "On the Naming and Binding of Network [RFC1498] Saltzer, J., "On the Naming and Binding of Network
Destinations", RFC 1498, August 1993. Destinations", RFC 1498, August 1993.
[RFC1955] Hinden, R., "New Scheme for Internet Routing and [RFC1955] Hinden, R., "New Scheme for Internet Routing and
Addressing (ENCAPS) for IPNG", RFC 1955, June 1996. Addressing (ENCAPS) for IPNG", RFC 1955, June 1996.
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
RFC 2402, November 1998.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998. October 1998.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000. March 2000.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001. RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[RFC4423] Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol [RFC4423] Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006. (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.
[RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route [RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route
Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, May 2007. Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, May 2007.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Zhang, L., and K. Fall, "Report from the IAB [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Zhang, L., and K. Fall, "Report from the IAB
Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984, Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984,
September 2007. September 2007.
[UDP-TUNNELS]
Eubanks, M. and P. Chimento, "UDP Checksums for Tunneled
Packets"", draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00.txt (work in
progress), February 2009.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, Febuary 2007. NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, Febuary 2007.
[ALT] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP [ALT] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)", Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)",
draft-ietf-lisp-alt-01.txt (work in progress), May 2009. draft-ietf-lisp-alt-01.txt (work in progress), May 2009.
[APT] Jen, D., Meisel, M., Massey, D., Wang, L., Zhang, B., and [APT] Jen, D., Meisel, M., Massey, D., Wang, L., Zhang, B., and
skipping to change at page 61, line 17 skipping to change at page 64, line 24
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt (work in progress), draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt (work in progress),
March 2009. March 2009.
[LISP-MN] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Lewis, D., and D. Meyer, "LISP [LISP-MN] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Lewis, D., and D. Meyer, "LISP
Mobility Architecture", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-00.txt (work Mobility Architecture", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-00.txt (work
in progress), July 2009. in progress), July 2009.
[LISP-MS] Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "LISP Map Server", [LISP-MS] Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "LISP Map Server",
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-01.txt (work in progress), May 2009. draft-ietf-lisp-ms-02.txt (work in progress),
September 2009.
[LISP1] Farinacci, D., Oran, D., Fuller, V., and J. Schiller, [LISP1] Farinacci, D., Oran, D., Fuller, V., and J. Schiller,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP1) [Routable ID "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP1) [Routable ID
Version]", Version]",
Slide-set http://www.dinof.net/~dino/ietf/lisp1.ppt, Slide-set http://www.dinof.net/~dino/ietf/lisp1.ppt,
October 2006. October 2006.
[LISP2] Farinacci, D., Oran, D., Fuller, V., and J. Schiller, [LISP2] Farinacci, D., Oran, D., Fuller, V., and J. Schiller,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP2) [DNS-based "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP2) [DNS-based
Version]", Version]",
skipping to change at page 63, line 28 skipping to change at page 66, line 28
contributed discussion and ideas to the making of this proposal. contributed discussion and ideas to the making of this proposal.
They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller, They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller,
Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston,
David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley,
Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler,
Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi
Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Roger Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Roger
Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland
Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian
Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David Black, Roque Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David Black, Roque
Gagliano, and Isidor Kouvelas. Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin, Margaret
Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, and Pedro Marques.
In particular, we would like to thank Dave Meyer for his clever In particular, we would like to thank Dave Meyer for his clever
suggestion for the name "LISP". ;-) suggestion for the name "LISP". ;-)
This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF. This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
The individual submission [LISP-MAIN] was converted into this IETF The individual submission [LISP-MAIN] was converted into this IETF
LISP working group draft. LISP working group draft.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
 End of changes. 85 change blocks. 
220 lines changed or deleted 377 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.36. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/