draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-23.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: August 15, 2012 D. Lewis Expires: November 5, 2012 D. Lewis
cisco Systems cisco Systems
February 12, 2012 May 4, 2012
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-22 draft-ietf-lisp-23
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 August 15, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 25 skipping to change at page 3, line 25
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
13. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 13. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
14.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work . . . . . . . . . . 75 15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work . . . . . . . . . . 75
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-23.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-21.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-20.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-21.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-19.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-20.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-19.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
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
skipping to change at page 73, line 48 skipping to change at page 74, line 8
policy. policy.
This registry, initially empty, is constructed for future-use This registry, initially empty, is constructed for future-use
experimental work of LCAF values. See [LCAF] for details for other experimental work of LCAF values. See [LCAF] for details for other
possible unapproved address encodings. The unapproved LCAF encodings possible unapproved address encodings. The unapproved LCAF encodings
are an area for further study and experimentation. are an area for further study and experimentation.
14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers 14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers
The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for
LISP data-plane and control-plane operation, respectively. lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA is
requested to update the description for udp ports 4341 and 4342 as
follows:
lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets
14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers 14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers
The following Key ID values are defined by this specification as used The following Key ID values are defined by this specification as used
in any packet type that references a Key ID field: in any packet type that references a Key ID field:
Name Number Defined in Name Number Defined in
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
None 0 n/a None 0 n/a
HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2404] HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2404]
HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC6234] HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC6234]
Number values are in the range of 0 to 65355. The allocation of
values is on a first come first serve basis.
15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work 15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work
As an experimental specification, this work is, by definition, As an experimental specification, this work is, by definition,
incomplete. Specific areas where additional experience and work are incomplete. Specific areas where additional experience and work are
needed include: needed include:
o At present, only [ALT] is defined for implementing a database of o At present, only [ALT] is defined for implementing a database of
EID-to-RLOC mapping information. Additional research on other EID-to-RLOC mapping information. Additional research on other
mapping database systems is strongly encouraged. mapping database systems is strongly encouraged.
skipping to change at page 78, line 22 skipping to change at page 78, line 22
RFC 6115, February 2011. RFC 6115, February 2011.
[RFC6234] Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms [RFC6234] Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
(SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, May 2011. (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, May 2011.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011. in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.
[UDP-TUNNELS] [UDP-TUNNELS]
Eubanks, M. and P. Chimento, "UDP Checksums for Tunneled Eubanks, M. and P. Chimento, "UDP Checksums for Tunneled
Packets", draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-01.txt (work in Packets", draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-02.txt (work in
progress), October 2010. progress), March 2012.
[UDP-ZERO]
Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerland, "IPv6 UDP Checksum
Considerations", draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-04.txt (work in
progress), October 2011.
[VERSIONING] [VERSIONING]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Mapping Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Mapping
Versioning", draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-05.txt (work Versioning", draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-05.txt (work
in progress). in progress).
16.2. Informative References 16.2. Informative References
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS NUMBERS
skipping to change at page 82, line 5 skipping to change at page 81, line 7
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.
[RPKI] Lepinski, M., "An Infrastructure to Support Secure [RPKI] Lepinski, M., "An Infrastructure to Support Secure
Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-13.txt (work in Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-13.txt (work in
progress), February 2011. progress), February 2011.
[UDP-ZERO]
Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerland, "IPv6 UDP Checksum
Considerations", draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-05.txt (work in
progress), December 2011.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors. to the LISP authors.
A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
of location and identity, as well as detailed review of the LISP of location and identity, as well as detailed review of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
skipping to change at page 83, line 7 skipping to change at page 83, 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-22.txt B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-23.txt
o Posted May 2012 for final pre-RFC version.
o Move only the reference draft-ietf-6man-udpzero to the Informative
References section. Leave the draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums
reference in the Normative References section. After talking to
many people involved with this issue at Paris IETF, all thought
this would be an acceptable change.
o Added text to IANA Considerations section 14.4 to reflect IANA
comments about allocating Key-ID numbers.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt
o Posted February 2012 to reflect final DISCUSS comments from Adrian o Posted February 2012 to reflect final DISCUSS comments from Adrian
Farrel. Farrel.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-21.txt B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-21.txt
o Posted February 2012 to reflect DISCUSS comments from Adrian o Posted February 2012 to reflect DISCUSS comments from Adrian
Farrel, Stewart Bryant, and Wesley Eddy. Farrel, Stewart Bryant, and Wesley Eddy.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-20.txt B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-20.txt
o Posted January 2012 for resolution to Adrian Farrel's security o Posted January 2012 for resolution to Adrian Farrel's security
comments as well as additions to the end of section 2, Elwyn comments as well as additions to the end of section 2, Elwyn
Davies Gen-Art comments, and Ralph Droms' IANA and EID definition Davies Gen-Art comments, and Ralph Droms' IANA and EID definition
comments. comments.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-19.txt B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-19.txt
o Posted January 2012 for Stephen Farrell's comment resolution. o Posted January 2012 for Stephen Farrell's comment resolution.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt
o Posted December 2011 after reflecting comments from IANA. 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 o Create reference to sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 about DF bit setting
from section 5.3. from section 5.3.
o Inserted two references for Route-Returnability and on-path o Inserted two references for Route-Returnability and on-path
attacks in Security Considerations section. attacks in Security Considerations section.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt B.10. 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 84, line 43 skipping to change at page 85, line 6
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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt B.11. 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 85, line 27 skipping to change at page 85, line 39
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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt B.12. 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 86, line 42 skipping to change at page 87, line 5
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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt B.13. 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 87, line 35 skipping to change at page 87, line 45
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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt B.14. 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 88, line 10 skipping to change at page 88, line 20
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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt B.16. 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 90, line 14 skipping to change at page 90, line 26
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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt B.17. 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 91, line 36 skipping to change at page 92, line 5
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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt B.18. 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 92, line 45 skipping to change at page 93, line 13
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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt B.19. 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 93, line 24 skipping to change at page 93, line 41
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.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt B.20. 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 95, line 15 skipping to change at page 95, line 32
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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt B.22. 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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt B.23. 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.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt B.24. 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. 33 change blocks. 
59 lines changed or deleted 81 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/