draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-18.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: June 8, 2012 D. Lewis Expires: June 16, 2012 D. Lewis
cisco Systems cisco Systems
December 6, 2011 December 14, 2011
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-17 draft-ietf-lisp-18
Abstract Abstract
This draft describes a network layer based protocol that enables This draft describes a network layer based protocol that enables
separation of IP addresses into two new numbering spaces: Endpoint separation of IP addresses into two new numbering spaces: Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). No changes are Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). No changes are
required to either host protocol stacks or to the "core" of the required to either host protocol stacks or to the "core" of the
Internet infrastructure. LISP can be incrementally deployed, without Internet infrastructure. LISP can be incrementally deployed, without
a "flag day", and offers traffic engineering, multi-homing, and a "flag day", and offers traffic engineering, multi-homing, and
mobility benefits to early adopters, even when there are relatively mobility benefits to early adopters, even when there are relatively
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . 23 5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 23 5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 24 5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 25
5.5. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . 24 5.5. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . 25
6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats . . . . . 26 6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats . . . . . 27
6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 31 6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 32
6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.1.7. Map-Notify Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.1.7. Map-Notify Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . 41 6.1.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6.2. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.3. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.3.2. RLOC Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 6.3.2. RLOC Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.4. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6.4. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.5. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6.5. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . 51 6.6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . 52
6.6.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.6.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.6.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.6.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.6.3. Database Map Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.6.3. Database Map Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . 58 8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . 59
8.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . . 58 8.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . . 59
8.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 8.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
9. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 9. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.1. Site Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10.1. Site Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
13. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 13. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
14.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work . . . . . . . . . . 73 15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work . . . . . . . . . . 74
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
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
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
skipping to change at page 19, line 14 skipping to change at page 20, line 14
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
Inner Header: The inner header is the header on the datagram Inner Header: The inner header is the header on the datagram
received from the originating host. The source and destination IP received from the originating host. The source and destination IP
addresses are EIDs, [RFC0791], [RFC2460]. addresses are EIDs, [RFC0791], [RFC2460].
Outer Header: The outer header is a new header prepended by an ITR. Outer Header: The outer header is a new header prepended by an ITR.
The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
router's EID-to-RLOC cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" router's EID-to-RLOC cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)"
from [RFC0768]. The DF bit of the Flags field is set to 0 when from [RFC0768]. The setting of the DF bit Flags field is
the method in Section 5.4.1 is used and set to 1 when the method according to rules in Section 5.4.1 and Section 5.4.2.
in Section 5.4.2 is used.
UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when
encapsulating a packet. See Section 6.5 for details on the hash encapsulating a packet. See Section 6.5 for details on the hash
algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the
inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known
IANA assigned port value 4341. IANA assigned port value 4341.
UDP Checksum: The UDP checksum field SHOULD be transmitted as zero UDP Checksum: The UDP checksum field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 encapsulation by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 encapsulation
[UDP-TUNNELS] [UDP-ZERO]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum [UDP-TUNNELS] [UDP-ZERO]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum
skipping to change at page 68, line 11 skipping to change at page 69, line 11
approach is chosen for LISP-Multicast. Details for LISP-Multicast approach is chosen for LISP-Multicast. Details for LISP-Multicast
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 (see Section 3) mechanisms
use of a 24-bit Nonce field in the LISP encapsulation header and a evidenced by the use of a 24-bit Nonce field in the LISP
64-bit Nonce field in the LISP control message. encapsulation header and a 64-bit Nonce field in the LISP control
message.
The nonce, coupled with the ITR accepting only solicited Map-Replies The nonce, coupled with the ITR accepting only solicited Map-Replies
provides a basic level of security, in many ways similar to the provides a basic level of security, in many ways similar to the
security experienced in the current Internet routing system. It is security experienced in the current Internet routing system. It is
hard for off-path attackers to launch attacks against these LISP hard for off-path attackers to launch attacks against these LISP
mechanisms, as they do not have the nonce values. Sending a large mechanisms, as they do not have the nonce values. Sending a large
number of packets to accidentally find the right nonce value is number of packets to accidentally find the right nonce value is
possible, but would already by itself be a denial-of-service attack. possible, but would already by itself be a denial-of-service attack.
On-path attackers can perform far more serious attacks, but on-path On-path attackers can perform far more serious attacks, but on-path
attackers can launch serious attacks in the current Internet as well, attackers can launch serious attacks in the current Internet as well,
including eavesdropping, blocking or redirecting traffic. including eavesdropping, blocking or redirecting traffic. See more
discussion on this topic in Section 6.1.5.1.
LISP does not rely on a PKI or a more heavy weight authentication LISP does not rely on a PKI or a more heavy weight authentication
system. These systems challenge the scalability of LISP which was a system. These systems challenge the scalability of LISP which was a
primary design goal. 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.
An incorrectly implemented or malicious ITR might choose to ignore An incorrectly implemented or malicious ITR might choose to ignore
skipping to change at page 71, line 22 skipping to change at page 72, line 22
o LISP IANA registry allocations should not be made for purposes o LISP IANA registry allocations should not be made for purposes
unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols. unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols.
o The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in o The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental
Use", "First Come First Served". Use", "First Come First Served".
14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields 14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields
New ACT values (Section 6.1.5) can be allocated through IETF review New ACT values (Section 6.1.4) can be allocated through IETF review
or IESG approval. Four values have already been allocated by this or IESG approval. Four values have already been allocated by this
specification (Section 6.1.5). specification (Section 6.1.4).
In addition, the LISP protocol has a number of flag and reserved In addition, the LISP protocol has a number of flag and reserved
fields, such as the LISP header flags field (Section 5.3). New bits fields, such as the LISP header flags field (Section 5.3). New bits
for flags can be taken into use from these fields through IETF review for flags can be taken into use from these fields through IETF review
or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA. or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA.
14.2. LISP Address Type Codes 14.2. LISP Address Type Codes
LISP Address [LCAF] type codes have a range from 0 to 255. New type LISP Address [LCAF] type codes have a range from 0 to 255. New type
codes MUST be allocated consecutively starting at 0. Type Codes 0 - codes MUST be allocated consecutively starting at 0. Type Codes 0 -
skipping to change at page 81, line 7 skipping to change at page 82, line 7
LISP working group draft. LISP working group draft.
The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time the set of LISP documents Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time the set of LISP documents
were being prepared for IESG last call, for his meticulous review and were being prepared for IESG last call, for his meticulous review and
detail commentary on the 7 working group last call drafts progressing detail commentary on the 7 working group last call drafts progressing
toward experimental RFCs. toward experimental RFCs.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt
o Posted December 2011 after reflecting comments from IANA.
o Create reference to sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 about DF bit setting
from section 5.3.
o Inserted two references for Route-Returnability and on-path
attacks in Security Considerations section.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt
o Posted December 2011 after IETF last call comments. o Posted December 2011 after IETF last call comments.
o Make Map-Notify port assignment be 4342 in both source and o Make Map-Notify port assignment be 4342 in both source and
destination ports. This change was agreed on and put in [LISP-MS] destination ports. This change was agreed on and put in [LISP-MS]
but was not updated in this spec. but was not updated in this spec.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt
o Posted October 2011 after AD review by Jari. o Posted October 2011 after AD review by Jari.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt
o Posted July 2011. Fixing IDnits errors. o Posted July 2011. Fixing IDnits errors.
o Change description on how to select a source address for RLOC- o Change description on how to select a source address for RLOC-
probe Map-Replies to refer to the "EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply Message" probe Map-Replies to refer to the "EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply Message"
section. section.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt
o Post working group last call and pre-IESG last call review. o Post working group last call and pre-IESG last call review.
o Indicate that an ICMP Unreachable message should be sent when a o Indicate that an ICMP Unreachable message should be sent when a
packet matches a drop-based negative map-cache entry. packet matches a drop-based negative map-cache entry.
o Indicate how a map-cache set of overlapping EID-prefixes must o Indicate how a map-cache set of overlapping EID-prefixes must
maintain integrity when the map-cache maximum cap is reached. maintain integrity when the map-cache maximum cap is reached.
o Add Joel's description for the definition of an EID, that the bit o Add Joel's description for the definition of an EID, that the bit
skipping to change at page 82, line 9 skipping to change at page 83, line 20
in the Data Probe definition section. in the Data Probe definition section.
o Added text indicating that more-specific EID-prefixes must not be o Added text indicating that more-specific EID-prefixes must not be
removed when less-specific entries stay in the map-cache. This is removed when less-specific entries stay in the map-cache. This is
to preserve the integrity of the EID-prefix set. to preserve the integrity of the EID-prefix set.
o Add clarifying text in the Security Considerations section about o Add clarifying text in the Security Considerations section about
how an ETR must not decapsulate and forward a packet that is not how an ETR must not decapsulate and forward a packet that is not
for its configured EID-prefix range. for its configured EID-prefix range.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt
o Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call. o Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call.
o Tracker item 87. Put Yakov suggested wording in the EID-prefix o Tracker item 87. Put Yakov suggested wording in the EID-prefix
definition section to reference [INTERWORK] and [LISP-DEPLOY] definition section to reference [INTERWORK] and [LISP-DEPLOY]
about discussion on transition and access mechanisms. about discussion on transition and access mechanisms.
o Change "ITRs" to "ETRs" in the Locator Status Bit definition o Change "ITRs" to "ETRs" in the Locator Status Bit definition
section and data packet description section per Damien's comment. section and data packet description section per Damien's comment.
skipping to change at page 82, line 42 skipping to change at page 84, line 5
o Remove Security Area Statement title and reword section with o Remove Security Area Statement title and reword section with
Eliot's provided text. The text was agreed upon by LISP-WG chairs Eliot's provided text. The text was agreed upon by LISP-WG chairs
and Security ADs. and Security ADs.
o Remove word "potential" from the over-claiming paragraph of the o Remove word "potential" from the over-claiming paragraph of the
Security Considerations section per Stephen's request. Security Considerations section per Stephen's request.
o Wordsmithing and other editorial comments from Alia. o Wordsmithing and other editorial comments from Alia.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt
o Posted April 2011. o Posted April 2011.
o Tracker item 87. Provided rewording how an EID-prefix can be o Tracker item 87. Provided rewording how an EID-prefix can be
reused in the definition section of "EID-prefix". reused in the definition section of "EID-prefix".
o Tracker item 95. Change "eliminate" to "defer" in section 4.1. o Tracker item 95. Change "eliminate" to "defer" in section 4.1.
o Tracker item 110. Added that the Mapping Protocol Data field in o Tracker item 110. Added that the Mapping Protocol Data field in
the Map-Reply message is only used when needed by the particular the Map-Reply message is only used when needed by the particular
skipping to change at page 84, line 9 skipping to change at page 85, line 20
indicating that site partitioning is under investigation. indicating that site partitioning is under investigation.
o Tracker item 58. Added last paragraph of Security Considerations o Tracker item 58. Added last paragraph of Security Considerations
section about how to protect inner header EID address spoofing section about how to protect inner header EID address spoofing
attacks. attacks.
o Add suggested Sam text to indicate that all security concerns need o Add suggested Sam text to indicate that all security concerns need
not be addressed for moving document to Experimental RFC status. not be addressed for moving document to Experimental RFC status.
Put this in a subsection of the Security Considerations section. Put this in a subsection of the Security Considerations section.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt
o Posted March 30, 2011. o Posted March 30, 2011.
o Change IANA URL. The URL we had pointed to a general protocol o Change IANA URL. The URL we had pointed to a general protocol
numbers page. numbers page.
o Added the "s" bit to the Map-Request to allow SMR-invoked Map- o Added the "s" bit to the Map-Request to allow SMR-invoked Map-
Requests to be sent to a MN ETR via the map-server. Requests to be sent to a MN ETR via the map-server.
o Generalize text for the definition of Reencapsuatling tunnels. o Generalize text for the definition of Reencapsuatling tunnels.
skipping to change at page 85, line 5 skipping to change at page 86, line 13
reachability. reachability.
o Change "BGP RIB" to "RIB" per Clarence's comment. o Change "BGP RIB" to "RIB" per Clarence's comment.
o Fixed complaints by IDnits. o Fixed complaints by IDnits.
o Add subsection to Security Considerations section indicating how o Add subsection to Security Considerations section indicating how
EID-prefix overclaiming in Map-Replies is for further study and EID-prefix overclaiming in Map-Replies is for further study and
add a reference to LISP-SEC. add a reference to LISP-SEC.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt
o Posted March 2011. o Posted March 2011.
o Add p-bit to Map-Request so there is documentary reasons to know o Add p-bit to Map-Request so there is documentary reasons to know
when a PITR has sent a Map-Request to an ETR. when a PITR has sent a Map-Request to an ETR.
o Add Map-Notify message which is used to acknowledge a Map-Register o Add Map-Notify message which is used to acknowledge a Map-Register
message sent to a Map-Server. message sent to a Map-Server.
o Add M-bit to the Map-Register message so an ETR that wants an o Add M-bit to the Map-Register message so an ETR that wants an
skipping to change at page 85, line 27 skipping to change at page 86, line 35
o Add S-bit to the ECM and Map-Reply messages to describe security o Add S-bit to the ECM and Map-Reply messages to describe security
data that can be present in each message. Then refer to data that can be present in each message. Then refer to
[LISP-SEC] for expansive details. [LISP-SEC] for expansive details.
o Add Network Management Considerations section and point to the MIB o Add Network Management Considerations section and point to the MIB
and LIG drafts. and LIG drafts.
o Remove the word "simple" per Yakov's comments. o Remove the word "simple" per Yakov's comments.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt
o Posted October 2010. o Posted October 2010.
o Add to IANA Consideration section about the use of LCAF Type o Add to IANA Consideration section about the use of LCAF Type
values that accepted and maintained by the IANA registry and not values that accepted and maintained by the IANA registry and not
the LCAF specification. the LCAF specification.
o Indicate that implementations should be able to receive LISP o Indicate that implementations should be able to receive LISP
control messages when either UDP port is 4342, so they can be control messages when either UDP port is 4342, so they can be
robust in the face of intervening NAT boxes. robust in the face of intervening NAT boxes.
o Add paragraph to SMR section to indicate that an ITR does not need o Add paragraph to SMR section to indicate that an ITR does not need
to respond to an SMR-based Map-Request when it has no map-cache to respond to an SMR-based Map-Request when it has no map-cache
entry for the SMR source's EID-prefix. entry for the SMR source's EID-prefix.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt
o Posted August 2010. o Posted August 2010.
o In section 6.1.6, remove statement about setting TTL to 0 in Map- o In section 6.1.6, remove statement about setting TTL to 0 in Map-
Register messages. Register messages.
o Clarify language in section 6.1.5 about Map-Replying to Data- o Clarify language in section 6.1.5 about Map-Replying to Data-
Probes or Map-Requests. Probes or Map-Requests.
o Indicate that outer TTL should only be copied to inner TTL when it o Indicate that outer TTL should only be copied to inner TTL when it
skipping to change at page 87, line 31 skipping to change at page 88, line 42
o Remove text on copying nonce from SMR to SMR-invoked Map- Request o Remove text on copying nonce from SMR to SMR-invoked Map- Request
per Vina's comment about a possible DoS vector. per Vina's comment about a possible DoS vector.
o Clarify (S/2 + H) in the stateless MTU section. o Clarify (S/2 + H) in the stateless MTU section.
o Add text to reflect Damien's comment about the description of the o Add text to reflect Damien's comment about the description of the
"ITR-RLOC Address" field in the Map-Request. that the list of RLOC "ITR-RLOC Address" field in the Map-Request. that the list of RLOC
addresses are local addresses of the Map-Requester. addresses are local addresses of the Map-Requester.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt
o Posted April 2010. o Posted April 2010.
o Added I-bit to data header so LSB field can also be used as an o Added I-bit to data header so LSB field can also be used as an
Instance ID field. When this occurs, the LSB field is reduced to Instance ID field. When this occurs, the LSB field is reduced to
8-bits (from 32-bits). 8-bits (from 32-bits).
o Added V-bit to the data header so the 24-bit nonce field can also o Added V-bit to the data header so the 24-bit nonce field can also
be used for source and destination version numbers. be used for source and destination version numbers.
skipping to change at page 89, line 5 skipping to change at page 90, line 17
o In section 9.2, add text to describe what the signature of o In section 9.2, add text to describe what the signature of
traceroute packets can look like. traceroute packets can look like.
o Removed references to Data Probe for introductory example. Data- o Removed references to Data Probe for introductory example. Data-
probes are still part of the LISP design but not encouraged. probes are still part of the LISP design but not encouraged.
o Added the definition for "LISP site" to the Definition of Terms" o Added the definition for "LISP site" to the Definition of Terms"
section. section.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt
Editorial based changes: Editorial based changes:
o Posted December 2009. o Posted December 2009.
o Fix typo for flags in LISP data header. Changed from "4" to "5". o Fix typo for flags in LISP data header. Changed from "4" to "5".
o Add text to indicate that Map-Register messages must contain a o Add text to indicate that Map-Register messages must contain a
computed UDP checksum. computed UDP checksum.
skipping to change at page 90, line 13 skipping to change at page 91, line 26
These type of Map-Requests are used as RLOC-probes and are sent These type of Map-Requests are used as RLOC-probes and are sent
directly to locator addresses in the underlying network. directly to locator addresses in the underlying network.
o Add text in section 6.1.5 about returning all EID-prefixes in a o Add text in section 6.1.5 about returning all EID-prefixes in a
Map-Reply sent by an ETR when there are overlapping EID-prefixes Map-Reply sent by an ETR when there are overlapping EID-prefixes
configure. configure.
o Add text in a new subsection of section 6.1.5 about dealing with o Add text in a new subsection of section 6.1.5 about dealing with
Map-Replies with coarse EID-prefixes. Map-Replies with coarse EID-prefixes.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
o Posted September 2009. o Posted September 2009.
o Added this Document Change Log appendix. o Added this Document Change Log appendix.
o Added section indicating that encapsulated Map-Requests must use o Added section indicating that encapsulated Map-Requests must use
destination UDP port 4342. destination UDP port 4342.
o Don't use AH in Map-Registers. Put key-id, auth-length, and auth- o Don't use AH in Map-Registers. Put key-id, auth-length, and auth-
data in Map-Register payload. data in Map-Register payload.
skipping to change at page 90, line 41 skipping to change at page 92, line 5
o The LISP-CONS authors thought that the Type definitions for CONS o The LISP-CONS authors thought that the Type definitions for CONS
should be removed from this specification. should be removed from this specification.
o Removed nonce from Map-Register message, it wasn't used so no need o Removed nonce from Map-Register message, it wasn't used so no need
for it. for it.
o Clarify what to do for unspecified Action bits for negative Map- o Clarify what to do for unspecified Action bits for negative Map-
Replies. Since No Action is a drop, make value 0 Drop. Replies. Since No Action is a drop, make value 0 Drop.
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt
o Posted September 2009. o Posted September 2009.
o How do deal with record count greater than 1 for a Map-Request. o How do deal with record count greater than 1 for a Map-Request.
Damien and Joel comment. Joel suggests: 1) Specify that senders Damien and Joel comment. Joel suggests: 1) Specify that senders
compliant with the current document will always set the count to compliant with the current document will always set the count to
1, and note that the count is included for future extensibility. 1, and note that the count is included for future extensibility.
2) Specify what a receiver compliant with the draft should do if 2) Specify what a receiver compliant with the draft should do if
it receives a request with a count greater than 1. Presumably, it it receives a request with a count greater than 1. Presumably, it
should send some error back? should send some error back?
skipping to change at page 92, line 32 skipping to change at page 93, line 44
o Reference IPsec RFC 4302. Comment from Sam and Brian Weis. o Reference IPsec RFC 4302. Comment from Sam and Brian Weis.
o Put E-bit in Map-Reply to tell ITRs that the ETR supports echo- o Put E-bit in Map-Reply to tell ITRs that the ETR supports echo-
noncing. Comment by Pedro and Dino. noncing. Comment by Pedro and Dino.
o Jesper made a comment to loosen the language about requiring the o Jesper made a comment to loosen the language about requiring the
copy of inner TTL to outer TTL since the text to get mixed-AF copy of inner TTL to outer TTL since the text to get mixed-AF
traceroute to work would violate the "MUST" clause. Changed from traceroute to work would violate the "MUST" clause. Changed from
MUST to SHOULD in section 5.3. MUST to SHOULD in section 5.3.
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt
o Posted July 2009. o Posted July 2009.
o Removed loc-reach-bits longword from control packets per Damien o Removed loc-reach-bits longword from control packets per Damien
comment. comment.
o Clarifications in MTU text from Roque. o Clarifications in MTU text from Roque.
o Added text to indicate that the locator-set be sorted by locator o Added text to indicate that the locator-set be sorted by locator
address from Isidor. address from Isidor.
o Clarification text from John Zwiebel in Echo-Nonce section. o Clarification text from John Zwiebel in Echo-Nonce section.
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt
o Posted July 2009. o Posted July 2009.
o Encapsulation packet format change to add E-bit and make loc- o Encapsulation packet format change to add E-bit and make loc-
reach-bits 32-bits in length. reach-bits 32-bits in length.
o Added Echo-Nonce Algorithm section. o Added Echo-Nonce Algorithm section.
o Clarification how ECN bits are copied. o Clarification how ECN bits are copied.
o Moved S-bit in Map-Request. o Moved S-bit in Map-Request.
o Added P-bit in Map-Request and Map-Reply messages to anticipate o Added P-bit in Map-Request and Map-Reply messages to anticipate
RLOC-Probe Algorithm. RLOC-Probe Algorithm.
o Added to Mobility section to reference [LISP-MN]. o Added to Mobility section to reference [LISP-MN].
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt
o Posted 2 days after draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt in May 2009. o Posted 2 days after draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt in May 2009.
o Defined LEID to be a "LISP EID". o Defined LEID to be a "LISP EID".
o Indicate encapsulation use IPv4 DF=0. o Indicate encapsulation use IPv4 DF=0.
o Added negative Map-Reply messages with drop, native-forward, and o Added negative Map-Reply messages with drop, native-forward, and
send-map-request actions. send-map-request actions.
o Added Proxy-Map-Reply bit to Map-Register. o Added Proxy-Map-Reply bit to Map-Register.
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt
o Posted May 2009. o Posted May 2009.
o Rename of draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt. o Rename of draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt.
o Acknowledgment to RRG. o Acknowledgment to RRG.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
114 lines changed or deleted 127 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/