draft-ietf-lisp-24.txt   rfc6830.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Request for Comments: 6830 Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer Category: Experimental V. Fuller
Expires: May 17, 2013 D. Lewis ISSN: 2070-1721
cisco Systems D. Meyer
November 13, 2012 D. Lewis
Cisco Systems
January 2013
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-24
Abstract Abstract
This draft describes a network layer based protocol that enables This document 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. The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
a "flag day", and offers traffic engineering, multi-homing, and can be incrementally deployed, without a "flag day", and offers
mobility benefits to early adopters, even when there are relatively Traffic Engineering, multihoming, and mobility benefits to early
few LISP-capable sites. adopters, even when there are relatively few LISP-capable sites.
Design and development of LISP was largely motivated by the problem Design and development of LISP was largely motivated by the problem
statement produced by the October 2006 IAB Routing and Addressing statement produced by the October 2006 IAB Routing and Addressing
Workshop. Workshop.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for examination, experimental implementation, and
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- evaluation.
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2013. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Requirements Notation ...........................................5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Definition of Terms .............................................5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Basic Overview .................................................10
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence ......................................13
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. LISP Encapsulation Details .....................................15
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format ...........................16
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format ...........................17
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions ..........................18
5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . 25 5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets ...................22
5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 25 5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling ...............22
5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . 26 5.4.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling ................23
5.5. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . 26 5.5. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP ...........24
6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping ............................................25
6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats . . . . . 28 6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats ...........25
6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations .......................27
6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.1.2. Map-Request Message Format .........................27
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message ................30
6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.1.4. Map-Reply Message Format ...........................31
6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message ..................35
6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.1.6. Map-Register Message Format ........................37
6.1.7. Map-Notify Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.1.7. Map-Notify Message Format ..........................39
6.1.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . 43 6.1.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format ................41
6.2. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.2. Routing Locator Selection .................................42
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.3. Routing Locator Reachability ..............................44
6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm ...............................46
6.3.2. RLOC Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6.3.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm .............................48
6.4. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6.4. EID Reachability within a LISP Site .......................49
6.5. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6.5. Routing Locator Hashing ...................................49
6.6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . 53 6.6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings .............50
6.6.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.6.1. Clock Sweep ........................................51
6.6.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6.6.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) ..........................52
6.6.3. Database Map Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6.6.3. Database Map-Versioning ............................53
7. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7. Router Performance Considerations ..............................54
8. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8. Deployment Scenarios ...........................................55
8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 8.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop Tunnel Routers .........................56
8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers ................................56
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers . . . . . . . . . . 60 8.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers .....................57
8.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . . 60 8.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs .................58
8.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 8.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site .............................58
9. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 9. Traceroute Considerations ......................................58
9.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.1. IPv6 Traceroute ...........................................59
9.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.2. IPv4 Traceroute ...........................................60
9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 9.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators ...........................60
10. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10. Mobility Considerations .......................................61
10.1. Site Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.1. Site Mobility ............................................61
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility ...................................61
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility ...................................61
10.4. Fast Network Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.4. Fast Network Mobility ....................................63
10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility ................................64
11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 11. Multicast Considerations ......................................64
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 12. Security Considerations .......................................65
13. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 13. Network Management Considerations .............................67
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14. IANA Considerations ...........................................67
14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields .................................67
14.2. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14.2. LISP Address Type Codes ..................................68
14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 14.3. LISP UDP Port Numbers ....................................68
14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 14.4. LISP Key ID Numbers ......................................68
15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work . . . . . . . . . . 75 15. Known Open Issues and Areas of Future Work ....................68
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 16. References ....................................................70
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 16.1. Normative References .....................................70
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 16.2. Informative References ...................................71
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Appendix A. Acknowledgments .......................................74
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-24.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-23.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-21.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-20.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-19.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-18.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-03.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-02.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-01.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-00.txt . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP), which provides a set of functions for routers to exchange (LISP), which provides a set of functions for routers to exchange
information used to map from non globally routeable Endpoint information used to map from Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) that are not
Identifiers (EIDs) to routeable Routing Locators (RLOCs). It also globally routable to routable Routing Locators (RLOCs). It also
defines a mechanism for these LISP routers to encapsulate IP packets defines a mechanism for these LISP routers to encapsulate IP packets
addressed with EIDs for transmission across the< Internet that uses addressed with EIDs for transmission across a network infrastructure
RLOCs for routing and forwarding. that uses RLOCs for routing and forwarding.
Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
October, 2006 (see [RFC4984]). A key conclusion of the workshop was October 2006 (see [RFC4984]). A key conclusion of the workshop was
that the Internet routing and addressing system was not scaling well that the Internet routing and addressing system was not scaling well
in the face of the explosive growth of new sites; one reason for this in the face of the explosive growth of new sites; one reason for this
poor scaling is the increasing number of multi-homed and other sites poor scaling is the increasing number of multihomed sites and other
that cannot be addressed as part of topologically- or provider-based sites that cannot be addressed as part of topology-based or provider-
aggregated prefixes. Additional work that more completely described based aggregated prefixes. Additional work that more completely
the problem statement may be found in [RADIR]. describes the problem statement may be found in [RADIR].
A basic observation, made many years ago in early networking research A basic observation, made many years ago in early networking research
such as that documented in [CHIAPPA] and [RFC4984], is that using a such as that documented in [CHIAPPA] and [RFC4984], is that using a
single address field for both identifying a device and for single address field for both identifying a device and for
determining where it is topologically located in the network requires determining where it is topologically located in the network requires
optimization along two conflicting axes: for routing to be efficient, optimization along two conflicting axes: for routing to be efficient,
the address must be assigned topologically; for collections of the address must be assigned topologically; for collections of
devices to be easily and effectively managed, without the need for devices to be easily and effectively managed, without the need for
renumbering in response to topological change (such as that caused by renumbering in response to topological change (such as that caused by
adding or removing attachment points to the network or by mobility adding or removing attachment points to the network or by mobility
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 4, line 35
The approach that LISP takes to solving the routing scalability The approach that LISP takes to solving the routing scalability
problem is to replace IP addresses with two new types of numbers: problem is to replace IP addresses with two new types of numbers:
Routing Locators (RLOCs), which are topologically assigned to network Routing Locators (RLOCs), which are topologically assigned to network
attachment points (and are therefore amenable to aggregation) and attachment points (and are therefore amenable to aggregation) and
used for routing and forwarding of packets through the network; and used for routing and forwarding of packets through the network; and
Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), which are assigned independently from Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), which are assigned independently from
the network topology, are used for numbering devices, and are the network topology, are used for numbering devices, and are
aggregated along administrative boundaries. LISP then defines aggregated along administrative boundaries. LISP then defines
functions for mapping between the two numbering spaces and for functions for mapping between the two numbering spaces and for
encapsulating traffic originated by devices using non-routeable EIDs encapsulating traffic originated by devices using non-routable EIDs
for transport across a network infrastructure that routes and for transport across a network infrastructure that routes and
forwards using RLOCs. Both RLOCs and EIDs are syntactically- forwards using RLOCs. Both RLOCs and EIDs are syntactically
identical to IP addresses; it is the semantics of how they are used identical to IP addresses; it is the semantics of how they are used
that differs. that differs.
This document describes the protocol that implements these functions. This document describes the protocol that implements these functions.
The database which stores the mappings between EIDs and RLOCs is The database that stores the mappings between EIDs and RLOCs is
explicitly a separate "module" to facilitate experimentation with a explicitly a separate "module" to facilitate experimentation with a
variety of approaches. One database design that is being developed variety of approaches. One database design that is being developed
for experimentation as part of the LISP working group work is [ALT]. for experimentation as part of the LISP working group work is
Others that have been described include [CONS], [EMACS], [NERD]. [RFC6836]. Others that have been described include [CONS], [EMACS],
Finally, [LISP-MS], documents a general-purpose service interface for and [RFC6837]. Finally, [RFC6833] documents a general-purpose
accessing a mapping database; this interface is intended to make the service interface for accessing a mapping database; this interface is
mapping database modular so that different approaches can be tried intended to make the mapping database modular so that different
without the need to modify installed LISP capable devices in LISP approaches can be tried without the need to modify installed LISP-
sites. capable devices in LISP sites.
This experimental specification has areas that require additional This experimental specification has areas that require additional
experience and measurement. It is NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment experience and measurement. It is NOT RECOMMENDED for deployment
beyond experimental situations. Results of experimentation may lead beyond experimental situations. Results of experimentation may lead
to modifications and enhancements of protocol mechanisms defined in to modifications and enhancements of protocol mechanisms defined in
this document. See Section 15 for specific, known issues that are in this document. See Section 15 for specific, known issues that are in
need of further work during development, implementation, and need of further work during development, implementation, and
experimentation. experimentation.
An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic, An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic,
applications, routers, and security is for future study. This applications, routers, and security is for future study. This
analysis will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing and analysis will explain what role LISP can play in scalable routing and
will also look at scalability and levels of state required for will also look at scalability and levels of state required for
encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on. encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness, and so on.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
Provider Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are an address Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are an address
block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with
any particular location in the network (e.g. from a particular any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular
service provider), and is therefore not topologically aggregatable service provider) and are therefore not topologically aggregatable
in the routing system. in the routing system.
Provider Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an address block Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an address block
assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site
connects. Typically, each block is sub-block of a service connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and
is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into
the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been
implemented by each multi-homed site acquiring its own, globally- implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically-assigned and visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically assigned and
aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this
demonstrably non-scalable practice. demonstrably non-scalable practice.
Routing Locator (RLOC): A RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC2460] address of an egress tunnel router (ETR). A RLOC is the [RFC2460] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is
output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one
more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically- or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically
aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to
which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is
defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be
thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the
same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains
a destination EID the same way it obtains an destination address a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address
today, for example through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] today, for example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or Session Invitation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet
must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally
unique. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-prefix block unique. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block
associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can be associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can be
used by a host to refer to other hosts. EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other hosts. EIDs MUST NOT be used as
LISP RLOCs. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a LISP RLOCs. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a
hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID
block assigned to a site may have site-local structure block assigned to a site may have site-local structure
(subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit string visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit string
that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
different device. As the architecture is realized, if a given bit different device. As the architecture is realized, if a given bit
string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same
entity in both cases. When used in discussions with other entity in both cases. When used in discussions with other
Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called a Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an
"LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refers "LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer
to an LEID. to an LEID.
EID-prefix: An EID-prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs which are EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- allocated to a site by an address allocation authority.
prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses which make up EID-Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses that make
a "database mapping". EID-prefix allocations can be broken up up a "database mapping". EID-Prefix allocations can be broken up
into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be associated with the into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be associated with the
larger EID-prefix block. A globally routed address block (whether larger EID-Prefix block. A globally routed address block (whether
PI or PA) is not inherently an EID-prefix. A globally routed PI or PA) is not inherently an EID-Prefix. A globally routed
address block MAY be used by its assignee as an EID block. The address block MAY be used by its assignee as an EID block. The
converse is not supported. That is, a site which receives an converse is not supported. That is, a site that receives an
explicitly allocated EID-prefix may not use that EID-prefix as a explicitly allocated EID-Prefix may not use that EID-Prefix as a
globally routed prefix. This would require coordination and globally routed prefix. This would require coordination and
cooperation with the entities managing the mapping infrastructure. cooperation with the entities managing the mapping infrastructure.
Once this has been done, that block could be removed from the Once this has been done, that block could be removed from the
globally routed IP system, if other suitable transition and access globally routed IP system, if other suitable transition and access
mechanisms are in place. Discussion of such transition and access mechanisms are in place. Discussion of such transition and access
mechanisms can be found in [INTERWORK] and [LISP-DEPLOY]. mechanisms can be found in [RFC6832] and [LISP-DEPLOY].
End-system: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates End-system: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
header when communicating globally (i.e. outside of its routing header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing
domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router
device, or any network appliance. device, or any network appliance.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a
LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then
prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its globally-routable prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its globally routable
RLOCs in the source address field and the result of the mapping RLOCs in the source address field and the result of the mapping
lookup in the destination address field. Note that this lookup in the destination address field. Note that this
destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has
better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the Internet on the other side. toward the Internet on the other side.
Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating hosts RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's
supplied EID). supplied EID).
TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider
network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic
Engineering purposes. Engineering purposes.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as well. of a LISP tunnel as well.
TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider
network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering
purposes. purposes.
xTR: A xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. xTR refers to the flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
router that is the tunnel endpoint. Used synonymously with the router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at the the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
Customer Edge (CE) router", meaning both ITR and ETR functionality the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
is at the CE router. functionality at the CE router.
LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
of any or all of ITR, ETR, PITR, or PETR. of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), or
Proxy-ETR (PETR).
EID-to-RLOC Cache: The EID-to-RLOC cache is a short-lived, on- EID-to-RLOC Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Cache is a short-lived,
demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is responsible for on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is responsible
timing-out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings. This for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings.
cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-to-RLOC This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-to-RLOC
mappings, it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and relatively small mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and relatively
while the database is distributed, relatively static, and much small, while the database is distributed, relatively static, and
more global in scope. much more global in scope.
EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC database is a global EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global
distributed database that contains all known EID-prefix to RLOC distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of
the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID prefixes the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes
"behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own, "behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own
globally-visible, IP addresses. The same database mapping entries globally visible IP addresses. The same database mapping entries
MUST be configured on all ETRs for a given site. In a steady MUST be configured on all ETRs for a given site. In a steady
state the EID-prefixes for the site and the locator-set for each state, the EID-Prefixes for the site and the Locator-Set for each
EID-prefix MUST be the same on all ETRs. Procedures to enforce EID-Prefix MUST be the same on all ETRs. Procedures to enforce
and/or verify this are outside the scope of this document. Note and/or verify this are outside the scope of this document. Note
that there MAY be transient conditions when the EID-prefix for the that there MAY be transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the
site and locator-set for each EID-prefix may not be the same on site and Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on
all ETRs. This has no negative implications since a partial set all ETRs. This has no negative implications, since a partial set
of locators can be used. of Locators can be used.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive tunneling occurs when a packet has Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement traffic engineering or other re-routing be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
is added and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
header. Any references to tunnels in this specification refers to header. Any references to tunnels in this specification refer to
dynamic encapsulating tunnels and they are never statically dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically
configured. configured.
Reencapsulating Tunnels: Reencapsulating tunneling occurs when an Re-encapsulating Tunnels: Re-encapsulating Tunneling occurs when an
ETR removes a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend another ETR removes a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend another
LISP header. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the LISP header. Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the
re-encapsulating router without adding the overhead of additional re-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 they are never refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically
statically configured. When using multiple mapping database configured. When using multiple mapping database systems, care
systems, care must be taken to not create reencapsulation loops must be taken to not create re-encapsulation loops through
through misconfiguration. misconfiguration.
LISP Header: a term used in this document to refer to the outer LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer
IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-specific 8-octet to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
header that follows the UDP header, an ITR prepends or an ETR specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR
strips. prepends or an ETR strips.
Address Family Identifier (AFI): a term used to describe an address Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an
encoding in a packet. An address family currently pertains to an address encoding in a packet. An address family currently
IPv4 or IPv6 address. See [AFI]/[AFI-REGISTRY] and [RFC3232] for pertains to an IPv4 or IPv6 address. See [AFI] and [RFC3232] for
details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification indicates details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification indicates
an unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is an unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is
0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a
negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-prefix negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix
is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the locator-set is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set
for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded locator count for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count
of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from
a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database.
There are a set of well defined actions that are encoded in a There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a
Negative Map-Reply (Section 6.1.5). Negative Map-Reply (Section 6.1.5).
Data Probe: A data-probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
the inner header destination address equals the outer header the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header
destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating
ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and
delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the
EID-prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is
discarded. A Data Probe is used in some of the mapping database discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database
designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other
cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design
for details. When using Data Probes, by sending Map-Requests on for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
the underlying routing system, EID-prefixes must be advertised. the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.
However, this is discouraged if the core is to scale by having However, this is discouraged if the core is to scale by having
less EID-prefixes stored in the core router's routing tables. less EID-Prefixes stored in the core router's routing tables.
Proxy ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [INTERWORK], a Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
which send packets to destinations at LISP sites. send packets to destinations at LISP sites.
Proxy ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [INTERWORK], a Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites which PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.
Route-returnability: is an assumption that the underlying routing Route-returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the
system will deliver packets to the destination. When combined underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.
with a nonce that is provided by a sender and returned by a When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A route- returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A
returnability check is verified when a message is sent with a route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
destination of the original message appears as the source of the destination of the original message appears as the source of the
returned message. returned message.
LISP site: is a set of routers in an edge network that are under a LISP site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
single technical administration. LISP routers which reside in the under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside
edge network are the demarcation points to separate the edge in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
network from the core network. edge network from the core network.
Client-side: a term used in this document to indicate a connection Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
initiation attempt by an EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP site are the a connection initiation attempt by an EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP
first to get involved in obtaining database map cache entries by site are the first to get involved in obtaining database Map-Cache
sending Map-Request messages. entries by sending Map-Request messages.
Server-side: a term used in this document to indicate a connection Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate
initiation attempt is being accepted for a destination EID. The that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a
ETR(s) at the destination LISP site are the first to send Map- destination EID. The ETR(s) at the destination LISP site are the
Replies to the source site initiating the connection. The ETR(s) first to send Map-Replies to the source site initiating the
at this destination site can obtain mappings by gleaning connection. The ETR(s) at this destination site can obtain
information from Map-Requests, Data-Probes, or encapsulated mappings by gleaning information from Map-Requests, Data-Probes,
packets. or encapsulated packets.
Locator Status Bits (LSBs): Locator status bits are present in the Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
Reachability Algorithms described in Section 6.3. reachability algorithms described in Section 6.3.
Anycast Address: a term used in this document to refer to the same Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on multiple systems at refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an
of their own address spaces. anycast address in each of their own address spaces.
4. Basic Overview 4. Basic Overview
One key concept of LISP is that end-systems (hosts) operate the same One key concept of LISP is that end-systems (hosts) operate the same
way they do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking way they do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking
sockets, connections, and for sending and receiving packets do not sockets and connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do
change. In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint not change. In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called
Identifiers (EIDs). Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs).
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.
Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router". A tunnel router Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router". A Tunnel Router
prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in
this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange
between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
packet and an egress tunnel router strips the new header. The ITR packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs
performs EID-to-RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the EID-to-RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which
ETR, which has the RLOC as one of its IP addresses. has the RLOC as one of its IP addresses.
Some basic rules governing LISP are: Some basic rules governing LISP are:
o End-systems (hosts) only send to addresses which are EIDs. They o End-systems (hosts) only send to addresses that are EIDs. They
don't know addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume packets get don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that
to their intended destinations. In a system where LISP is packets get to their intended destinations. In a system where
deployed, LISP routers intercept EID addressed packets and assist LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and
in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be assist in delivering them across the network core where EIDs
routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets
change. does not change.
o EIDs are always IP addresses assigned to hosts. o EIDs are always IP addresses assigned to hosts.
o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See
details later in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".
o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers; preferably, o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
topologically-oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
o When a router originates packets it may use as a source address o When a router originates packets, it may use as a source address
either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g. when either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when
terminating a transport session such as SSH, TELNET, or SNMP), it terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH),
may use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it may
EID that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID
RLOC; an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
typical BGP configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP
usage where a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
iBGP sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions
using RLOCs to terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to
site. terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site.
o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered
end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are end-to-end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation.
expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be They are expected to be used locally for intra-site communication
encapsulated for inter-site communication. or to be encapsulated for inter-site communication.
o EID prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a manner o EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a manner
which is optimized for administrative convenience and to that is optimized for administrative convenience and to facilitate
facilitate scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. The scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. The hierarchy is
hierarchy is based on a address allocation hierarchy which is based on an address allocation hierarchy that is independent of
independent of the network topology. the network topology.
o EIDs may also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for o EIDs may also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
local routing within an autonomous system. local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).
An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential
use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
traffic engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such
a situation, termed Recursive Tunneling, an ISP transit acts as an a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
additional ingress tunnel router and the RLOC it uses for the new additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header
prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic
intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic
inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an agreement to build such a engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists).
path exists).
In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
encapsulation loops, this document mandates that a maximum of two encapsulation loops, this document mandates that a maximum of two
LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP
deployments, it is assumed two headers is sufficient, where the first deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the
prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity separation first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity
and second prepended header is used inside a service provider for separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service
Traffic Engineering purposes. provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.
Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology. Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
host. Similarly, the egress tunnel router might be the last-hop host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
router directly-connected to the destination host. Another example, connected to the destination host. Another example, perhaps for a
perhaps for a VPN service out-sourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
could be the site's border router at the service provider attachment site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
point. Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
tunnel routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. See Section 8 for Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. See Section 8 for more
more details. details.
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence
This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow with the This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow with the
following conditions: following conditions:
o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site
was not using LISP. was not using LISP.
o Each site is multi-homed, so each tunnel router has an address o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
(RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
provider to which that particular tunnel router is attached. provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.
o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
located anywhere in LISP site. located anywhere in the LISP site.
o Map-Requests can be sent on the underlying routing system o Map-Requests can be sent on the underlying routing system
topology, to a mapping database system, or directly over an topology, to a mapping database system, or directly over an
alternative topology [ALT]. A Map-Request is sent for an external Alternative Logical Topology [RFC6836]. A Map-Request is sent for
destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding an external destination when the destination is not found in the
table or matches a default route. forwarding table or matches a default route.
o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology. o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology.
Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server
host2.xyz.example.com: host2.xyz.example.com:
1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on
host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This
address is the destination EID. The locally-assigned address of address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of
host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6 host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6
packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR. IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.
2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC 2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
of one of the ETRs at the destination site. The specific method of one of the ETRs at the destination site. The specific method
used to do this is not described in this example. See [ALT] or used to do this is not described in this example. See [RFC6836]
[CONS] for possible solutions. or [CONS] for possible solutions.
3. The ITR will send a LISP Map-Request. Map-Requests SHOULD be 3. The ITR will send a LISP Map-Request. Map-Requests SHOULD be
rate-limited. rate-limited.
4. When an alternate mapping system is not in use, the Map-Request 4. When an alternate mapping system is not in use, the Map-Request
packet is routed through the underlying routing system. packet is routed through the underlying routing system.
Otherwise, the Map-Request packet is routed on an alternate Otherwise, the Map-Request packet is routed on an alternate
logical topology, for example the [ALT] database mapping system. logical topology, for example, the [RFC6836] database mapping
In either case, when the Map-Request arrives at one of the ETRs system. In either case, when the Map-Request arrives at one of
at the destination site, it will process the packet as a control the ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
message. control message.
5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and 5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to- matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured
RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-prefixes the ETR EID-to-RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes
is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no match, the ETR is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no
the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is match, the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply
returned to the ITR. is returned to the ITR.
6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to 6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to
check for format validity) and stores the mapping information check for format validity), and stores the mapping information
from the packet. This information is stored in the ITR's EID-to- from the packet. This information is stored in the ITR's
RLOC mapping cache. Note that the map cache is an on-demand EID-to-RLOC mapping cache. Note that the map-cache is an
cache. An ITR will manage its map cache in such a way that on-demand cache. An ITR will manage its map-cache in such a way
optimizes for its resource constraints. that optimizes for its resource constraints.
7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to 7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the
ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
address learned from the ETR. Note the packet MAY be sent to a address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent
different ETR than the one which returned the Map-Reply due to to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
locator-set policy. Locator-Set policy.
8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination 8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
the attached destination host. the attached destination host.
In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
direction, an ETR MAY create a cache entry that maps the source EID direction, an ETR MAY create a cache entry that maps the source EID
(inner header source IP address) to the source RLOC (outer header (inner-header source IP address) to the source RLOC (outer-header
source IP address) in a received LISP packet. Such a cache entry is source IP address) in a received LISP packet. Such a cache entry is
termed a "gleaned" mapping and only contains a single RLOC for the termed a "gleaned" mapping and only contains a single RLOC for the
EID in question. More complete information about additional RLOCs EID in question. More complete information about additional RLOCs
SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both
ITR and the ETR may also influence the decision the other makes in the ITR and the ETR may also influence the decision the other makes
selecting an RLOC. See Section 6 for more details. in selecting an RLOC. See Section 6 for more details.
5. LISP Encapsulation Details 5. LISP Encapsulation Details
Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to
the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get
fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet
is dropped and an ICMP Too Big message is returned to the source. is dropped and an ICMP Too Big message is returned to the source.
This specification RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support This specification RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support
for one of the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two for one of the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two
existing schemes are detailed in Section 5.4. existing schemes are detailed in Section 5.4.
Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
header is in IPv4 packet format and the other header is in IPv6 header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6
packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header
is in IPv6 packet format and the other header is in IPv4 packet is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6) but all 4 homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
combinations MUST be supported. combinations MUST be supported.
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | / |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
skipping to change at page 19, line 26 skipping to change at page 16, line 26
| | 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 |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version | L |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | Instance ID/Locator Status Bits | S / | Instance ID/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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IHL = IP-Header-Length
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | / |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit | | | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
O + + O + +
u | | u | |
t + Source Routing Locator + t + Source Routing Locator +
e | | e | |
r + + r + +
| | | |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 20, line 29 skipping to change at page 17, line 36
| | | | | |
\ + + \ + +
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 | / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version | L |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | Instance ID/Locator Status Bits | S / | Instance ID/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 21, line 9 skipping to change at page 18, line 25
^ + Destination EID + ^ + Destination EID +
\ | | \ | |
\ + + \ + +
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram Inner Header (IH): 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: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an
ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress ITR. 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 setting of the DF bit Flags field is from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
according to rules in Section 5.4.1 and Section 5.4.2. 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 5.4.1 and
5.4.2.
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
is received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for is received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field. checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY 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 choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform
such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the
verification, or performs the verification successfully, the verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP
checksums for all tunneling protocols, including LISP, is under checksums for all tunneling protocols, including LISP, is under
active discussion within the IETF. When that discussion active discussion within the IETF. When that discussion
concludes, any necessary changes will be made to align LISP with concludes, any necessary changes will be made to align LISP with
the outcome of the broader discussion. the outcome of the broader discussion.
UDP Length: The UDP length field is set for an IPv4 encapsulated UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
packet to be the sum of the inner header IPv4 Total Length plus packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6 encapsulated packet, the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
the UDP length field is the sum of the inner header IPv6 Payload the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
the UDP and LISP headers. the UDP and LISP headers.
N: The N bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1, N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1,
the low-order 24-bits of the first 32-bits of the LISP header the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
contains a Nonce. See Section 6.3.1 for details. Both N and V contain a Nonce. See Section 6.3.1 for details. Both N- and
bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a
decapsulating ETR MUST treat the "Nonce/Map-Version" field as decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
having a Nonce value present. having a Nonce value present.
L: The L bit is the Locator Status Bits field enabled bit. When this L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When
bit is set to 1, the Locator Status Bits in the second 32-bits of this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
the LISP header are in use. 32 bits of the LISP header are in use.
x 1 x x 0 x x x x 1 x x 0 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Locator Status Bits | | Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E: The E bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored
and has no meaning when the N bit is set to 0. When the N bit is and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is
set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, means an ITR is requesting for set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the
the nonce value in the Nonce field to be echoed back in LISP nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See
Section 6.3.1 for details. Section 6.3.1 for details.
V: The V bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to
1, the N bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 6.6.3 for more details. 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 6.6.3 for more details.
This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this case This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this
as: case as:
0 x 0 1 x x x x 0 x 0 1 x x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|flags| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator Status Bits | | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I: The I bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 5.5 for more I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 5.5 for more
details. When this bit is set to 1, the Locator Status Bits field details. When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits'
is reduced to 8-bits and the high-order 24-bits are used as an field is reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as
Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits an Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order
are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format of the 8 bits are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format
LISP header would look like in this case: of the LISP header would look like this:
x x x x 1 x x x x x x x 1 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID | LSBs | | Instance ID | LSBs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
flags: The flags field is a 3-bit field is reserved for future flag flags: The 'flags' field is a 3-bit field reserved for future flag
use. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on use. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on
receipt. receipt.
LISP Nonce: The LISP nonce field is a 24-bit value that is randomly LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce generation randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce
algorithms are an implementation matter but are required to generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
generate different nonces when sending to different destinations. required to generate different nonces when sending to different
However, the same nonce can be used for a period of time to the destinations. However, the same nonce can be used for a period of
same destination. The nonce is also used when the E-bit is set to time to the same destination. The nonce is also used when the
request the nonce value to be echoed by the other side when E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the other
packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but the N-bit is side when packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but the
set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously requested echo- N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously
nonce or providing a random nonce. See Section 6.3.1 for more requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. See
details. Section 6.3.1 for more details.
LISP Locator Status Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the
locator status bits field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to 'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the 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 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). 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 The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
significant bit of field. The field is 32-bits when the I-bit is significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a Locator is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a
Status Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR the RLOC Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See Section 6.3 that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See
for details on how an ITR can determine the status of the ETRs at Section 6.3 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
the same site. When a site has multiple EID-prefixes which result the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
in multiple mappings (where each could have a different locator- that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
set), the Locator Status Bits setting in an encapsulated packet different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-prefix that the inner-header encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
source EID address matches. If the LSB for an anycast locator is that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for
set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC with that address the an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC
ETR is considered 'up'. with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.
When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:
o The outer header Time to Live field (or Hop Limit field, in case o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner header Time to Live the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
field. Live' field.
o The outer header Type of Service field (or the Traffic Class o The outer-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class'
field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner header field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header
Type of Service field (with one exception, see below). 'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below).
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
o The inner header Time to Live field (or Hop Limit field, in case o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer header Time to Live the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
field, when the Time to Live field of the outer header is less Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
than the Time to Live of the inner header. Failing to perform less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to
this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header
increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycle. This check is to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
also performed when doing initial encapsulation when a packet check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
o The inner header Type of Service field (or the Traffic Class o The inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class'
field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer header field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header
Type of Service field (with one exception, see below). 'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below).
Note if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and choose to reencapsulate Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to
after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that
header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old
1. outer header minus 1.
Copying the TTL serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
Section 9.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. misconfiguration. See Section 9.3 for TTL exception handling for
traceroute packets.
The ECN field occupies bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 Type of Service The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6
field and the IPv6 Traffic Class field [RFC3168]. The ECN field and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic
requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment
of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit ECN in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
MUST copy the 2-bit ECN field from the stripped outer header to the header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
new outer header. If the ECN field contains a congestion indication 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit ECN field from value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR
the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer
to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the
Congestion Experienced (CE) indications when a packet that uses ECN packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications
traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes
to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel
endpoints.
5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets 5.4. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets
This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed
the path MTU between the ITR and ETR. the path MTU between the ITR and ETR.
It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
mechanism should be implemented. Both or neither can be used since mechanism should be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since
it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.
Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Reencapsulating Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
and Recursive Tunneling. So any actions below referring to an ITR and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
also apply to an TE-ITR. also apply to a TE-ITR.
5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling 5.4.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows: follows:
1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header
lengths. lengths.
2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum sized packet 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
intermediate routers to fragment the packet. intermediate routers to fragment the packet.
3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a 3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
packet, in octets, an ITR must receive so the effective MTU can packet, in octets, an ITR must receive so the effective MTU can
be met. That is, S = L - H. be met. That is, S = L - H.
When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
octets, it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the original octets, it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the original
packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then prepended packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then prepended
to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments is then to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments is then
(S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path MTU (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path MTU
between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.
When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers then individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and
forwards each fragment to the destination host of the destination then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
site. The two fragments are reassembled at the destination host into destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the
the single IP datagram that was originated by the source host. Note destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the encapsulated packet was the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
fragmented at or after the ITR. encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.
This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates
a packet with the DF field of the IP header is set to 0. When the DF a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the
field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6 packet 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6
originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet when the packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet
size is greater than L, and sends an ICMP Too Big message to the when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Too Big message to
source with a value of S, where S is (L - H). the source with a value of S, where S is (L - H).
When the outer header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU
issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.
This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500.
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 described as follows An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described 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 Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can
can deliver along the path between ITR and ETR. deliver along the path between the 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 1, exceeds what the core network can deliver, with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can
one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an ICMP Too deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
Big message to the ITR. The ITR will parse the ICMP message to ICMP Too Big message to the ITR. The ITR will parse the ICMP
determine which locator is affected by the effective MTU change message to determine which Locator is affected by the effective
and then record the new effective MTU value in the mapping cache MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value in the
entry. Map-Cache 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 Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
destination EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Too EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Too Big message
Big message back to the source. The packet size advertised by back to the source. The packet size advertised by the ITR in the
the ITR in the ICMP Too Big message is the effective MTU minus ICMP Too Big message is the effective MTU minus the LISP
the LISP encapsulation length. encapsulation length.
Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.
5.5. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP 5.5. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP
When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private
addresses [RFC1918] as EID-prefixes, their address spaces MUST remain addresses [RFC1918] as EID-Prefixes, their address spaces MUST remain
segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in
the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI based address the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI-based address
unique. See IANA Considerations Section 14.2 for details for unique. See IANA Considerations (Section 14.2) for details on
possible address encodings. possible address encodings.
An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP encapsulated packet. An ITR An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An ITR
that prepends a LISP header, will copy a 24-bit value, used by the that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
LISP router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied
copied to the Instance ID field of the LISP header and the I-bit is to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
set to 1. to 1.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
to use for the inner destination EID lookup. to use for the inner destination EID lookup.
For example, a 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
24-bit Instance ID. 24-bit Instance ID.
6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping 6. EID-to-RLOC Mapping
6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control Plane Packet Formats 6.1. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats
The following UDP packet formats are used by the LISP control-plane. The following UDP packet formats are used by the LISP control plane.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 29, line 28 skipping to change at page 26, line 46
The LISP UDP-based messages are the Map-Request and Map-Reply The LISP UDP-based messages are the Map-Request and Map-Reply
messages. When a UDP Map-Request is sent, the UDP source port is messages. When a UDP Map-Request is sent, the UDP source port is
chosen by the sender and the destination UDP port number is set to chosen by the sender and the destination UDP port number is set to
4342. When a UDP Map-Reply is sent, the source UDP port number is 4342. When a UDP Map-Reply is sent, the source UDP port number is
set to 4342 and the destination UDP port number is copied from the set to 4342 and the destination UDP port number is copied from the
source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet. source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet.
Implementations MUST be prepared to accept packets when either the Implementations MUST be prepared to accept packets when either the
source port or destination UDP port is set to 4342 due to NATs source port or destination UDP port is set to 4342 due to NATs
changing port number values. changing port number values.
The UDP Length field will reflect the length of the UDP header and The 'UDP Length' field will reflect the length of the UDP header and
the LISP Message payload. the LISP Message payload.
The UDP Checksum is computed and set to non-zero for Map-Request, The UDP checksum is computed and set to non-zero for Map-Request,
Map-Reply, Map-Register and ECM control messages. It MUST be checked Map-Reply, Map-Register, and Encapsulated Control Message (ECM)
on receipt and if the checksum fails, the packet MUST be dropped. control messages. It MUST be checked on receipt, and if the checksum
fails, the packet MUST be dropped.
The format of control messages includes the UDP header so the The format of control messages includes the UDP header so the
checksum and length fields can be used to protect and delimit message checksum and length fields can be used to protect and delimit message
boundaries. boundaries.
6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations 6.1.1. LISP Packet Type Allocations
This section will be the authoritative source for allocating LISP This section will be the authoritative source for allocating LISP
Type values and for defining LISP control message formats. Current Type values and for defining LISP control message formats. Current
allocations are: allocations are:
skipping to change at page 30, line 37 skipping to change at page 27, line 46
| . . . Nonce | | . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... | | Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... | | ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI n | ITR-RLOC Address n ... | | ITR-RLOC-AFI n | ITR-RLOC Address n ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-prefix-AFI | / | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI |
Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-prefix ... | \ | EID-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Map-Reply Record ... | | Map-Reply Record ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 1 (Map-Request) Type: 1 (Map-Request)
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
Requests sent by an ITR. Set to 1 when an ITR wants the Map-Requests sent by an ITR. It is set to 1 when an ITR wants the
destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping
database system. database system.
M: This is the map-data-present bit, when set, it indicates a Map- M: This is the map-data-present bit. When set, it indicates that a
Reply Record segment is included in the Map-Request. Map-Reply Record segment is included in the Map-Request.
P: This is the probe-bit which indicates that a Map-Request SHOULD be P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that a Map-Request SHOULD
treated as a locator reachability probe. The receiver SHOULD be treated as a Locator reachability probe. The receiver SHOULD
respond with a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set, indicating the respond with a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set, indicating that
Map-Reply is a locator reachability probe reply, with the nonce the Map-Reply is a Locator reachability probe reply, with the
copied from the Map-Request. See Section 6.3.2 for more details. nonce copied from the Map-Request. See Section 6.3.2 for more
details.
S: This is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See Section 6.6.2 for S: This is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See Section 6.6.2 for
details. details.
p: This is the PITR bit. This bit is set to 1 when a PITR sends a p: This is the PITR bit. This bit is set to 1 when a PITR sends a
Map-Request. Map-Request.
s: This is the SMR-invoked bit. This bit is set to 1 when an xTR is s: This is the SMR-invoked bit. This bit is set to 1 when an xTR is
sending a Map-Request in response to a received SMR-based Map- sending a Map-Request in response to a received SMR-based
Request. Map-Request.
Reserved: It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be
receipt. ignored on receipt.
IRC: This 5-bit field is the ITR-RLOC Count which encodes the IRC: This 5-bit field is the ITR-RLOC Count, which encodes the
additional number of (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC Address) fields additional number of ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC Address') fields
present in this message. At least one (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC- present in this message. At least one (ITR-RLOC-AFI,
Address) pair MUST be encoded. Multiple ITR-RLOC Address fields ITR-RLOC-Address) pair MUST be encoded. Multiple 'ITR-RLOC
are used so a Map-Replier can select which destination address to Address' fields are used, so a Map-Replier can select which
use for a Map-Reply. The IRC value ranges from 0 to 31. For a destination address to use for a Map-Reply. The IRC value ranges
value of 0, there is 1 ITR-RLOC address encoded, and for a value from 0 to 31. For a value of 0, there is 1 ITR-RLOC address
of 1, there are 2 ITR-RLOC addresses encoded and so on up to 31 encoded; for a value of 1, there are 2 ITR-RLOC addresses encoded,
which encodes a total of 32 ITR-RLOC addresses. and so on up to 31, which encodes a total of 32 ITR-RLOC
addresses.
Record Count: The number of records in this Map-Request message. A Record Count: This is the number of records in this Map-Request
record is comprised of the portion of the packet that is labeled message. A record is comprised of the portion of the packet that
'Rec' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record Count. is labeled 'Rec' above and occurs the number of times equal to
For this version of the protocol, a receiver MUST accept and Record Count. For this version of the protocol, a receiver MUST
process Map-Requests that contain one or more records, but a accept and process Map-Requests that contain one or more records,
sender MUST only send Map-Requests containing one record. Support but a sender MUST only send Map-Requests containing one record.
for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request message will Support for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request
be specified in a future version of the protocol. message will be specified in a future version of the protocol.
Nonce: An 8-octet random value created by the sender of the Map- Nonce: This is an 8-octet random value created by the sender of the
Request. This nonce will be returned in the Map-Reply. The Map-Request. This nonce will be returned in the Map-Reply. The
security of the LISP mapping protocol depends critically on the security of the LISP mapping protocol critically depends on the
strength of the nonce in the Map-Request message. The nonce strength of the nonce in the Map-Request message. The nonce
SHOULD be generated by a properly seeded pseudo-random (or strong SHOULD be generated by a properly seeded pseudo-random (or strong
random) source. See [RFC4086] for advice on generating security- random) source. See [RFC4086] for advice on generating security-
sensitive random data. sensitive random data.
Source-EID-AFI: Address family of the "Source EID Address" field. Source-EID-AFI: This is the address family of the 'Source EID
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 that
originated the packet which is caused the Map-Request. When Map- originated the packet that caused the Map-Request. When
Requests are used for refreshing a map-cache entry or for RLOC- Map-Requests are used for refreshing a Map-Cache entry or for
probing, an AFI value 0 is used and this field is of zero length. RLOC-Probing, an AFI value 0 is used and this field is of zero
length.
ITR-RLOC-AFI: Address family of the "ITR-RLOC Address" field that ITR-RLOC-AFI: This is the address family of the 'ITR-RLOC Address'
follows this field. field that follows this field.
ITR-RLOC Address: Used to give the ETR the option of selecting the ITR-RLOC Address: This is used to give the ETR the option of
destination address from any address family for the Map-Reply selecting the destination address from any address family for the
message. This address MUST be a routable RLOC address of the Map-Reply message. This address MUST be a routable RLOC address
sender of the Map-Request message. of the sender of the Map-Request message.
EID mask-len: Mask length for EID prefix. EID mask-len: This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix.
EID-prefix-AFI: Address family of EID-prefix according to [AFI] EID-Prefix-AFI: This is the address family of the EID-Prefix
according to [AFI].
EID-prefix: 4 octets if an IPv4 address-family, 16 octets if an IPv6 EID-Prefix: This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and
address-family. When a Map-Request is sent by an ITR because a 16 octets for an IPv6 address family. When a Map-Request is sent
data packet is received for a destination where there is no by an ITR because a data packet is received for a destination
mapping entry, the EID-prefix is set to the destination IP address where there is no mapping entry, the EID-Prefix is set to the
of the data packet. And the 'EID mask-len' is set to 32 or 128 destination IP address of the data packet, and the 'EID mask-len'
for IPv4 or IPv6, respectively. When an xTR wants to query a site is set to 32 or 128 for IPv4 or IPv6, respectively. When an xTR
about the status of a mapping it already has cached, the EID- wants to query a site about the status of a mapping it already has
prefix used in the Map-Request has the same mask-length as the cached, the EID-Prefix used in the Map-Request has the same mask
EID-prefix returned from the site when it sent a Map-Reply length as the EID-Prefix returned from the site when it sent a
message. Map-Reply message.
Map-Reply Record: When the M bit is set, this field is the size of a Map-Reply Record: When the M-bit is set, this field is the size of a
single "Record" in the Map-Reply format. This Map-Reply record single "Record" 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 that will receive this Map-Request to
cache the data if it chooses to do so. cache the data if it chooses to do so.
6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message 6.1.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message
A Map-Request is sent from an ITR when it needs a mapping for an EID, A Map-Request is sent from an ITR when it needs a mapping for an EID,
wants to test an RLOC for reachability, or wants to refresh a mapping wants to test an RLOC for reachability, or wants to refresh a mapping
before TTL expiration. For the initial case, the destination IP before TTL expiration. For the initial case, the destination IP
address used for the Map-Request is the data packet's destination address used for the Map-Request is the data packet's destination
address (i.e. the destination-EID) which had a mapping cache lookup address (i.e., the destination EID) that had a mapping cache lookup
failure. For the latter two cases, the destination IP address used failure. For the latter two cases, the destination IP address used
for the Map-Request is one of the RLOC addresses from the locator-set for the Map-Request is one of the RLOC addresses from the Locator-Set
of the map cache entry. The source address is either an IPv4 or IPv6 of the Map-Cache entry. The source address is either an IPv4 or IPv6
RLOC address depending if the Map-Request is using an IPv4 versus RLOC address, depending on whether the Map-Request is using an IPv4
IPv6 header, respectively. In all cases, the UDP source port number or IPv6 header, respectively. In all cases, the UDP source port
for the Map-Request message is an ITR/PITR selected 16-bit value and number for the Map-Request message is a 16-bit value selected by the
the UDP destination port number is set to the well-known destination ITR/PITR, and the UDP destination port number is set to the well-
port number 4342. A successful Map-Reply, which is one that has a known destination port number 4342. A successful Map-Reply, which is
nonce that matches an outstanding Map-Request nonce, will update the one that has a nonce that matches an outstanding Map-Request nonce,
cached set of RLOCs associated with the EID prefix range. will update the cached set of RLOCs associated with the EID-Prefix
range.
One or more Map-Request (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC-Address) fields MUST One or more Map-Request ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC-Address') fields
be filled in by the ITR. The number of fields (minus 1) encoded MUST MUST be filled in by the ITR. The number of fields (minus 1) encoded
be placed in the IRC field. The ITR MAY include all locally MUST be placed in the 'IRC' field. The ITR MAY include all locally
configured locators in this list or just provide one locator address configured Locators in this list or just provide one locator address
from each address family it supports. If the ITR erroneously from each address family it supports. If the ITR erroneously
provides no ITR-RLOC addresses, the Map-Replier MUST drop the Map- provides no ITR-RLOC addresses, the Map-Replier MUST drop the
Request. Map-Request.
Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination port Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination
4342 with a LISP type value set to "Encapsulated Control Message", port 4342 with a LISP Type value set to "Encapsulated Control
when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver. Likewise, Map-Requests are Message", when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver. Likewise,
LISP encapsulated the same way from a Map-Server to an ETR. Details Map-Requests are LISP encapsulated the same way from a Map-Server to
on encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be found in an ETR. Details on Encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can
[LISP-MS]. be found in [RFC6833].
Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is RECOMMENDED that a Map- Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited. It is RECOMMENDED that a
Request for the same EID-prefix be sent no more than once per second. Map-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 An ITR that is configured with mapping database information (i.e., it
is also an ETR) MAY optionally include those mappings in a Map- is also an ETR) MAY optionally include those mappings in a
Request. When an ETR configured to accept and verify such Map-Request. When an ETR configured to accept and verify such
"piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request and it does "piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request and it does
not have this mapping in the map-cache, it MAY originate a "verifying not have this mapping in the map-cache, it MAY originate a "verifying
Map-Request", addressed to the map-requesting ITR and the ETR MAY add Map-Request", addressed to the map-requesting ITR and the ETR MAY add
a map-cache entry. If the ETR has a map-cache entry that matches the a Map-Cache entry. If the ETR has a Map-Cache entry that matches the
"piggybacked" EID and the RLOC is in the locator-set for the entry, "piggybacked" EID and the RLOC is in the Locator-Set for the entry,
then it may send the "verifying Map-Request" directly to the then it may send the "verifying Map-Request" directly to the
originating Map-Request source. If the RLOC is not in the locator- originating Map-Request source. If the RLOC is not in the
set, then the ETR MUST send the "verifying Map-Request" to the Locator-Set, then the ETR MUST send the "verifying Map-Request" to
"piggybacked" EID. Doing this forces the "verifying Map-Request" to the "piggybacked" EID. Doing this forces the "verifying Map-Request"
go through the mapping database system to reach the authoritative to go through the mapping database system to reach the authoritative
source of information about that EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing source of information about that EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing
in in the "piggybacked" mapping data. 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|E|S| Reserved | Record Count | |Type=2 |P|E|S| Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce | | . . . Nonce |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL | | | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-prefix-AFI | c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-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 |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 2 (Map-Reply) Type: 2 (Map-Reply)
P: This is the probe-bit which indicates that the Map-Reply is in P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that the Map-Reply is in
response to a locator reachability probe Map-Request. The nonce response to a Locator reachability probe Map-Request. The 'Nonce'
field MUST contain a copy of the nonce value from the original field MUST contain a copy of the nonce value from the original
Map-Request. See Section 6.3.2 for more details. Map-Request. See Section 6.3.2 for more details.
E: Indicates that the ETR which sends this Map-Reply message is E: This bit indicates that the ETR that sends this Map-Reply message
advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce locator is advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce Locator
reachability algorithm. See Section 6.3.1 for more details. reachability algorithm. See Section 6.3.1 for more details.
S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1 the following S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1, the following
authentication information will be appended to the end of the Map- authentication information will be appended to the end of the
Reply. The detailed format of the Authentication Data Content is Map-Reply. The detailed format of the Authentication Data Content
for further study. is for further study.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . | | AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be
receipt. ignored on receipt.
Record Count: The number of records in this reply message. A record Record Count: This is the number of records in this reply message.
is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record' above A record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled
and occurs the number of times equal to Record count. 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record
Count.
Nonce: A 24-bit value set in a Data-Probe packet or a 64-bit value Nonce: This is a 24-bit value set in a Data-Probe packet, or a
from the Map-Request is echoed in this Nonce field of the Map- 64-bit value from the Map-Request is echoed in this 'Nonce' field
Reply. When a 24-bit value is supplied, it resides in the low- of the Map-Reply. When a 24-bit value is supplied, it resides in
order 64 bits of the nonce field. the low-order 64 bits of the 'Nonce' field.
Record TTL: The time in minutes the recipient of the Map-Reply will Record TTL: This is the time in minutes the recipient of the
store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry SHOULD be removed Map-Reply will store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry
from the cache immediately. If the value is 0xffffffff, the SHOULD be removed from the cache immediately. If the value is
recipient can decide locally how long to store the mapping. 0xffffffff, the recipient can decide locally how long to store the
mapping.
Locator Count: The number of Locator entries. A locator entry Locator Count: This is the number of Locator entries. A Locator
comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The locator count can entry comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. The Locator count
be 0 indicating there are no locators for the EID-prefix. can be 0, indicating that there are no Locators for the
EID-Prefix.
EID mask-len: Mask length for EID prefix. EID mask-len: This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix.
ACT: This 3-bit field describes negative Map-Reply actions. In any ACT: This 3-bit field describes Negative Map-Reply actions. In any
other message type, these bits are set to 0 and ignored on other message type, these bits are set to 0 and ignored on
receipt. These bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field receipt. These bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field
is set to 0. The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply is set to 0. The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply
messages. The actions defined are used by an ITR or PITR when a messages. The actions defined are used by an ITR or PITR when a
destination EID matches a negative mapping cache entry. destination EID matches a negative Map-Cache entry. Unassigned
Unassigned values should cause a map-cache entry to be created values should cause a Map-Cache entry to be created, and when
and, when packets match this negative cache entry, they will be packets match this negative cache entry, they will be dropped.
dropped. The current assigned values are: The current assigned values are:
(0) No-Action: The map-cache is kept alive and no packet (0) No-Action: The map-cache is kept alive, and no packet
encapsulation occurs. encapsulation occurs.
(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) Send-Map-Request: The packet invokes sending a Map-Request. (2) Send-Map-Request: The packet invokes sending a Map-Request.
(3) Drop: A packet that matches this map-cache entry is dropped. (3) Drop: A packet that matches this map-cache entry is dropped.
An ICMP Unreachable message SHOULD be sent. An ICMP Destination Unreachable message SHOULD be sent.
A: The Authoritative bit, when sent is always set to 1 by an ETR. A: The Authoritative bit, when sent, is always set to 1 by an ETR.
When a Map-Server is proxy Map-Replying [LISP-MS] for a LISP site, When a Map-Server is proxy Map-Replying [RFC6833] for a LISP site,
the Authoritative bit is set to 0. This indicates to requesting the Authoritative bit is set to 0. This indicates to requesting
ITRs that the Map-Reply was not originated by a LISP node managed ITRs that the Map-Reply was not originated by a LISP node managed
at the site that owns the EID-prefix. at the site that owns the EID-Prefix.
Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value is non-zero the Map-Reply Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value is non-zero, the
sender is informing the ITR what the version number is for the Map-Reply sender is informing the ITR what the version number is
EID-record contained in the Map-Reply. The ETR can allocate this for the EID record contained in the Map-Reply. The ETR can
number internally but MUST coordinate this value with other ETRs allocate this number internally but MUST coordinate this value
for the site. When this value is 0, there is no versioning with other ETRs for the site. When this value is 0, there is no
information conveyed. The Map-Version Number can be included in versioning information conveyed. The Map-Version Number can be
Map-Request and Map-Register messages. See Section 6.6.3 for more included in Map-Request and Map-Register messages. See
details. Section 6.6.3 for more details.
EID-prefix-AFI: Address family of EID-prefix according to [AFI]. EID-Prefix-AFI: Address family of the EID-Prefix according to [AFI].
EID-prefix: 4 octets if an IPv4 address-family, 16 octets if an IPv6 EID-Prefix: This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and
address-family. 16 octets for an IPv6 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.
Weight: when priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the weight Weight: When priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the Weight
indicates how to balance unicast traffic between them. Weight is indicates how to balance unicast traffic between them. Weight is
encoded as a relative weight of total unicast packets that match encoded as a relative weight of total unicast packets that match
the mapping entry. For example if there are 4 locators in a the mapping entry. For example, if there are 4 Locators in a
locator set, where the weights assigned are 30, 20, 20, and 10, Locator-Set, where the Weights assigned are 30, 20, 20, and 10,
the first locator will get 37.5% of the traffic, the 2nd and 3rd the first Locator will get 37.5% of the traffic, the 2nd and 3rd
locators will get 25% of traffic and the 4th locator will get Locators will get 25% of the traffic, and the 4th Locator will get
12.5% of the traffic. If all weights for a locator-set are equal, 12.5% of the traffic. If all Weights for a Locator-Set are equal,
receiver of the Map-Reply will decide how to load-split traffic. the receiver of the Map-Reply will decide how to load-split the
See Section 6.5 for a suggested hash algorithm to distribute load traffic. See Section 6.5 for a suggested hash algorithm to
across locators with same priority and equal weight values. distribute the load across Locators with the same Priority and
equal Weight values.
M Priority: each RLOC is assigned a multicast priority used by an M Priority: Each RLOC is assigned a multicast Priority used by an
ETR in a receiver multicast site to select an ITR in a source ETR in a receiver multicast site to select an ITR in a source
multicast site for building multicast distribution trees. A value multicast site for building multicast distribution trees. A value
of 255 means the RLOC MUST NOT be used for joining a multicast of 255 means the RLOC MUST NOT be used for joining a multicast
distribution tree. For more details, see [MLISP]. distribution tree. For more details, see [RFC6831].
M Weight: when priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the M Weight: When priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the
weight indicates how to balance building multicast distribution Weight indicates how to balance building multicast distribution
trees across multiple ITRs. The weight is encoded as a relative trees across multiple ITRs. The Weight is encoded as a relative
weight (similar to the unicast Weights) of total number of trees weight (similar to the unicast Weights) of the total number of
built to the source site identified by the EID-prefix. If all trees built to the source site identified by the EID-Prefix. If
weights for a locator-set are equal, the receiver of the Map-Reply all Weights for a Locator-Set are equal, the receiver of the
will decide how to distribute multicast state across ITRs. For Map-Reply will decide how to distribute multicast state across
more details, see [MLISP]. ITRs. For more details, see [RFC6831].
Unused Flags: set to 0 when sending and ignored on receipt. Unused Flags: These are set to 0 when sending and ignored on
receipt.
L: when this bit is set, the locator is flagged as a local locator to L: When this bit is set, the Locator is flagged as a local Locator to
the ETR that is sending the Map-Reply. When a Map-Server is doing the ETR that is sending the Map-Reply. When a Map-Server is doing
proxy Map-Replying [LISP-MS] for a LISP site, the L bit is set to proxy Map-Replying [RFC6833] for a LISP site, the L-bit is set to
0 for all locators in this locator-set. 0 for all Locators in this Locator-Set.
p: when this bit is set, an ETR informs the RLOC-probing ITR that the p: When this bit is set, an ETR informs the RLOC-Probing ITR that the
locator address, for which this bit is set, is the one being RLOC- locator address for which this bit is set is the one being
probed and MAY be different from the source address of the Map- RLOC-probed and MAY be different from the source address of the
Reply. An ITR that RLOC-probes a particular locator, MUST use Map-Reply. An ITR that RLOC-probes a particular Locator MUST use
this locator for retrieving the data structure used to store the this Locator for retrieving the data structure used to store the
fact that the locator is reachable. The "p" bit is set for a fact that the Locator is reachable. The p-bit is set for a single
single locator in the same locator set. If an implementation sets Locator in the same Locator-Set. If an implementation sets more
more than one "p" bit erroneously, the receiver of the Map-Reply than one p-bit erroneously, the receiver of the Map-Reply MUST
MUST select the first locator. The "p" bit MUST NOT be set for select the first Locator. The p-bit MUST NOT be set for
locator-set records sent in Map-Request and Map-Register messages. Locator-Set records sent in Map-Request and Map-Register messages.
R: set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the locator in R: This is set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the
the locator data record. This receiver may find this useful to Locator in the Locator data record. This receiver may find this
know if the locator is up but not necessarily reachable from the useful to know if the Locator is up but not necessarily reachable
receiver's point of view. See also Section 6.4 for another way from the receiver's point of view. See also Section 6.4 for
the R-bit may be used. another way the R-bit may be used.
Locator: an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the 'Loc-AFI' field) Locator: This is an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the
assigned to an ETR. Note that the destination RLOC address MAY be 'Loc-AFI' field) assigned to an ETR. Note that the destination
an anycast address. A source RLOC can be an anycast address as RLOC address MAY be an anycast address. A source RLOC can be an
well. The source or destination RLOC MUST NOT be the broadcast anycast address as well. The source or destination RLOC MUST NOT
address (255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast address known to be the broadcast address (255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast
the router), and MUST NOT be a link-local multicast address. The address known to the router) and MUST NOT be a link-local
source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast address. The destination RLOC multicast address. The source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast
SHOULD be a multicast address if it is being mapped from a address. The destination RLOC SHOULD be a multicast address if it
multicast destination EID. is being mapped from a multicast destination EID.
6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message 6.1.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message
A Map-Reply returns an EID-prefix with a prefix length that is less A Map-Reply returns an EID-Prefix with a prefix length that is less
than or equal to the EID being requested. The EID being requested is than or equal to the EID being requested. The EID being requested is
either from the destination field of an IP header of a Data-Probe or either from the destination field of an IP header of a Data-Probe or
the EID record of a Map-Request. The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are the EID record of a Map-Request. The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are
globally-routable IP addresses of all ETRs for the LISP site. Each globally routable IP addresses of all ETRs for the LISP site. Each
RLOC conveys status reachability but does not convey path RLOC conveys status reachability but does not convey path
reachability from a requesters perspective. Separate testing of path reachability from a requester's perspective. Separate testing of
reachability is required, See Section 6.3 for details. path reachability is required. See Section 6.3 for details.
Note that a Map-Reply may contain different EID-prefix granularity Note that a Map-Reply may contain different EID-Prefix granularity
(prefix + length) than the Map-Request which triggers it. This might (prefix + length) than the Map-Request that triggers it. This might
occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned by an occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned by an
earlier Map-Reply. In such a case, the requester updates its cache earlier Map-Reply. In such a case, the requester updates its cache
with the new prefix information and granularity. For example, a with the new prefix information and granularity. For example, a
requester with two cached EID-prefixes that are covered by a Map- requester with two cached EID-Prefixes that are covered by a
Reply containing one, less-specific prefix, replaces the entry with Map-Reply containing one less-specific prefix replaces the entry with
the less-specific EID-prefix. Note that the reverse, replacement of the less-specific EID-Prefix. Note that the reverse, replacement of
one less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can one less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can
also occur but not by removing the less-specific prefix rather by also occur, not by removing the less-specific prefix but rather by
adding the more-specific prefixes which during a lookup will override adding the more-specific prefixes that, during a lookup, will
the less-specific prefix. override the less-specific prefix.
When an ETR is configured with overlapping EID-prefixes, a Map- When an ETR is configured with overlapping EID-Prefixes, a
Request with an EID that longest matches any EID-prefix MUST be Map-Request with an EID that best matches any EID-Prefix MUST be
returned in a single Map-Reply message. For instance, if an ETR had returned in a single Map-Reply message. For instance, if an ETR had
database mapping entries for EID-prefixes: database mapping entries for EID-Prefixes:
10.0.0.0/8 10.0.0.0/8
10.1.0.0/16 10.1.0.0/16
10.1.1.0/24 10.1.1.0/24
10.1.2.0/24 10.1.2.0/24
A Map-Request for EID 10.1.1.1 would cause a Map-Reply with a record A Map-Request for EID 10.1.1.1 would cause a Map-Reply with a record
count of 1 to be returned with a mapping record EID-prefix of count of 1 to be returned with a mapping record EID-Prefix of
10.1.1.0/24. 10.1.1.0/24.
A Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5, would cause a Map-Reply with a record A Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5 would cause a Map-Reply with a record
count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for EID-prefixes count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for EID-Prefixes
10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24. 10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24.
Note that not all overlapping EID-prefixes need to be returned, only Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but
the more specifics (note in the second example above 10.0.0.0/8 was only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above
not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) entries for the matching 10.0.0.0/8 was not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) for the
EID-prefix of the requesting EID. When more than one EID-prefix is matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID. When more than one
returned, all SHOULD use the same Time-to-Live value so they can all EID-Prefix is returned, all SHOULD use the same Time to Live value so
time out at the same time. When a more specific EID-prefix is they can all time out at the same time. When a more-specific
received later, its Time-to-Live value in the Map-Reply record can be EID-Prefix is received later, its Time to Live value in the Map-Reply
stored even when other less specifics exist. When a less specific record can be stored even when other less-specific entries exist.
EID-prefix is received later, its map-cache expiration time SHOULD be When a less-specific EID-Prefix is received later, its map-cache
set to the minimum expiration time of any more specific EID-prefix in expiration time SHOULD be set to the minimum expiration time of any
the map-cache. This is done so the integrity of the EID-prefix set more-specific EID-Prefix in the map-cache. This is done so the
is wholly maintained so no more-specific entries are removed from the integrity of the EID-Prefix set is wholly maintained and so no more-
map-cache while keeping less-specific entries. specific entries are removed from the map-cache while keeping less-
specific entries.
Map-Replies SHOULD be sent for an EID-prefix no more often than once Map-Replies SHOULD be sent for an EID-Prefix no more often than once
per second to the same requesting router. For scalability, it is per second to the same requesting router. For scalability, it is
expected that aggregation of EID addresses into EID-prefixes will expected that aggregation of EID addresses into EID-Prefixes will
allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for the EID addresses in the allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for the EID addresses in the
prefix range thereby reducing the number of Map-Request messages. prefix range, thereby reducing the number of Map-Request messages.
Map-Reply records can have an empty locator-set. A negative Map- Map-Reply records can have an empty Locator-Set. A Negative
Reply is a Map-Reply with an empty locator-set. Negative Map-Replies Map-Reply is a Map-Reply with an empty Locator-Set. Negative
convey special actions by the sender to the ITR or PITR which have Map-Replies convey special actions by the sender to the ITR or PITR
solicited the Map-Reply. There are two primary applications for that have solicited the Map-Reply. There are two primary
Negative Map-Replies. The first is for a Map-Resolver to instruct an applications for Negative Map-Replies. The first is for a
ITR or PITR when a destination is for a LISP site versus a non-LISP Map-Resolver to instruct an ITR or PITR when a destination is for a
site. And the other is to source quench Map-Requests which are sent LISP site versus a non-LISP site, and the other is to source quench
for non-allocated EIDs. Map-Requests that are sent for non-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 address. than' an IPv6 locator address.
When sending a Map-Reply message, the destination address is copied When sending a Map-Reply message, the destination address is copied
from the one of the ITR-RLOC fields from the Map-Request. The ETR from one of the 'ITR-RLOC' fields from the Map-Request. The ETR can
can choose a locator address from one of the address families it choose a locator address from one of the address families it
supports. For Data-Probes, the destination address of the Map-Reply supports. For Data-Probes, the destination address of the Map-Reply
is copied from the source address of the Data-Probe message which is is copied from the source address of the Data-Probe message that is
invoking the reply. The source address of the Map-Reply is one of invoking the reply. The source address of the Map-Reply is one of
the local IP addresses chosen to allow uRPF checks to succeed in the the local IP addresses chosen to allow Unicast Reverse Path
upstream service provider. The destination port of a Map-Reply Forwarding (uRPF) checks to succeed in the upstream service provider.
message is copied from the source port of the Map-Request or Data- The destination port of a Map-Reply message is copied from the source
Probe and the source port of the Map-Reply message is set to the port of the Map-Request or Data-Probe, and the source port of the
well-known UDP port 4342. Map-Reply message is set to the well-known UDP port 4342.
6.1.5.1. Traffic Redirection with Coarse EID-Prefixes 6.1.5.1. Traffic Redirection with Coarse EID-Prefixes
When an ETR is misconfigured or compromised, it could return coarse When an ETR is misconfigured or compromised, it could return coarse
EID-prefixes in Map-Reply messages it sends. The EID-prefix could EID-Prefixes in Map-Reply messages it sends. The EID-Prefix could
cover EID-prefixes which are allocated to other sites redirecting cover EID-Prefixes that are allocated to other sites, redirecting
their traffic to the locators of the compromised site. their traffic to the Locators of the compromised site.
To solve this problem, there are two basic solutions that could be To solve this problem, there are two basic solutions that could be
used. The first is to have Map-Servers proxy-map-reply on behalf of used. The first is to have Map-Servers proxy Map-Reply on behalf of
ETRs so their registered EID-prefixes are the ones returned in Map- ETRs so their registered EID-Prefixes are the ones returned in
Replies. Since the interaction between an ETR and Map-Server is Map-Replies. Since the interaction between an ETR and Map-Server is
secured with shared-keys, it is easier for an ETR to detect secured with shared keys, it is easier for an ETR to detect
misbehavior. The second solution is to have ITRs and PITRs cache misbehavior. The second solution is to have ITRs and PITRs cache
EID-prefixes with mask-lengths that are greater than or equal to a EID-Prefixes with mask lengths that are greater than or equal to a
configured prefix length. This limits the damage to a specific width configured prefix length. This limits the damage to a specific width
of any EID-prefix advertised, but needs to be coordinated with the of any EID-Prefix advertised but needs to be coordinated with the
allocation of site prefixes. These solutions can be used allocation of site prefixes. These solutions can be used
independently or at the same time. independently or at the same time.
At the time of this writing, other approaches are being considered At the time of this writing, other approaches are being considered
and researched. and researched.
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 [RFC6833]. This section solely defines the message
format. format.
The message is sent in UDP with a destination UDP port of 4342 and a The message is sent in UDP with a destination UDP port of 4342 and a
randomly selected UDP source port number. randomly selected UDP source port number.
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 |M| Record Count | |Type=3 |P| Reserved |M| Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce | | . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key ID | Authentication Data Length | | Key ID | Authentication Data Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Authentication Data ~ ~ Authentication Data ~
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL | | | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-prefix-AFI | c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-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 |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 3 (Map-Register) Type: 3 (Map-Register)
P: This is the proxy-map-reply bit, when set to 1 an ETR sends a Map- P: This is the proxy Map-Reply bit. When set to 1, an ETR sends a
Register message requesting for the Map-Server to proxy Map-Reply. Map-Register message requesting the Map-Server to proxy a
The Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map-Replies on behalf Map-Reply. The Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map-Replies
of the ETR. Details on this usage can be found in [LISP-MS]. on behalf of the ETR. Details on this usage can be found in
[RFC6833].
Reserved: It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on Reserved: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be
receipt. ignored on receipt.
M: This is the want-map-notify bit, when set to 1 an ETR is M: This is the want-map-notify bit. When set to 1, an ETR is
requesting for a Map-Notify message to be returned in response to requesting a Map-Notify message to be returned in response to
sending a Map-Register message. The Map-Notify message sent by a sending a Map-Register message. The Map-Notify message sent by a
Map-Server is used to an acknowledge receipt of a Map-Register Map-Server is used to acknowledge receipt of a Map-Register
message. message.
Record Count: The number of records in this Map-Register message. A Record Count: This is the number of records in this Map-Register
record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 'Record' message. A record is comprised of that portion of the packet
above and occurs the number of times equal to Record count. labeled 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to
Record Count.
Nonce: This 8-octet Nonce field is set to 0 in Map-Register Nonce: This 8-octet 'Nonce' field is set to 0 in Map-Register
messages. Since the Map-Register message is authenticated, the messages. Since the Map-Register message is authenticated, the
nonce field is not currently used for any security function but 'Nonce' field is not currently used for any security function but
may be in the future as part of an anti-replay solution. may be in the future as part of an anti-replay solution.
Key ID: A configured ID to find the configured Message Key ID: This is a configured ID to find the configured Message
Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm and key value used for the Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm and key value used for the
authentication function. See Section 14.4 for codepoint authentication function. See Section 14.4 for codepoint
assignments. assignments.
Authentication Data Length: The length in octets of the Authentication Data Length: This is the length in octets of the
Authentication Data field that follows this field. The length of 'Authentication Data' field that follows this field. The length
the Authentication Data field is dependent on the Message of the 'Authentication Data' field is dependent on the MAC
Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm used. The length field allows algorithm used. The length field allows a device that doesn't
a device that doesn't know the MAC algorithm to correctly parse know the MAC algorithm to correctly parse the packet.
the packet.
Authentication Data: The message digest used from the output of the Authentication Data: This is the message digest used from the output
Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. The entire Map- of the MAC algorithm. The entire Map-Register payload is
Register payload is authenticated with this field preset to 0. authenticated with this field preset to 0. After the MAC is
After the MAC is computed, it is placed in this field. computed, it is placed in this field. Implementations of this
Implementations of this specification MUST include support for specification MUST include support for HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2404],
HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2404] and support for HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC6234] and support for HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC4868] is RECOMMENDED.
is RECOMMENDED.
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
Map-Reply section. Section 6.1.4.
6.1.7. Map-Notify Message Format 6.1.7. Map-Notify Message Format
The usage details of the Map-Notify message can be found in The usage details of the Map-Notify message can be found in
specification [LISP-MS]. This section solely defines the message specification [RFC6833]. This section solely defines the message
format. format.
The message is sent inside a UDP packet with source and destination The message is sent inside a UDP packet with source and destination
UDP ports equal to 4342. UDP ports equal to 4342.
The Map-Notify message format is: The Map-Notify 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=4 | Reserved | Record Count | |Type=4 | Reserved | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce | | . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key ID | Authentication Data Length | | Key ID | Authentication Data Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Authentication Data ~ ~ Authentication Data ~
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL | | | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-prefix-AFI | c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-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 |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet field descriptions: Packet field descriptions:
Type: 4 (Map-Notify) Type: 4 (Map-Notify)
The Map-Notify message has the same contents as a Map-Register The Map-Notify message has the same contents as a Map-Register
message. See Map-Register section for field descriptions. message. See the Map-Register section for field descriptions.
6.1.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format 6.1.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format
An Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) is used to encapsulate control An Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) is used to encapsulate control
packets sent between xTRs and the mapping database system described packets sent between xTRs and the mapping database system described
in [LISP-MS]. in [RFC6833].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | IPv4 or IPv6 Header | / | IPv4 or IPv6 Header |
OH | (uses RLOC addresses) | OH | (uses RLOC addresses) |
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4342 | / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4342 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 44, line 31 skipping to change at page 41, line 37
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = yyyy | / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = yyyy |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LCM | LISP Control Message | LCM | LISP Control Message |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Packet header descriptions: Packet header descriptions:
OH: The outer IPv4 or IPv6 header which uses RLOC addresses in the OH: The outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, which uses RLOC addresses in the
source and destination header address fields. source and destination header address fields.
UDP: The outer UDP header with destination port 4342. The source UDP: The outer UDP header with destination port 4342. The source
port is randomly allocated. The checksum field MUST be non-zero. port is randomly allocated. The checksum field MUST be
non-zero.
LH: Type 8 is defined to be a "LISP Encapsulated Control Message" LH: Type 8 is defined to be a "LISP Encapsulated Control Message",
and what follows is either an IPv4 or IPv6 header as encoded by and what follows is either an IPv4 or IPv6 header as encoded by
the first 4 bits after the reserved field. the first 4 bits after the 'Reserved' field.
S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1 the field following the S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1, the field following
Reserved field will have the following format. The detailed the 'Reserved' field will have the following format. The
format of the Authentication Data Content is for further study. detailed format of the Authentication Data Content is for
further study.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . | | AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH: The inner IPv4 or IPv6 header which can use either RLOC or EID IH: The inner IPv4 or IPv6 header, which can use either RLOC or EID
addresses in the header address fields. When a Map-Request is addresses in the header address fields. When a Map-Request is
encapsulated in this packet format the destination address in this encapsulated in this packet format, the destination address in
header is an EID. this header is an EID.
UDP: The inner UDP header where the port assignments depends on the UDP: The inner UDP header, where the port assignments depend on the
control packet being encapsulated. When the control packet is a control packet being encapsulated. When the control packet is
Map-Request or Map-Register, the source port is ITR/PITR selected a Map-Request or Map-Register, the source port is selected by
and the destination port is 4342. When the control packet is a the ITR/PITR and the destination port is 4342. When the
Map-Reply, the source port is 4342 and the destination port is control packet is a Map-Reply, the source port is 4342 and the
assigned from the source port of the invoking Map-Request. Port destination port is assigned from the source port of the
number 4341 MUST NOT be assigned to either port. The checksum invoking Map-Request. Port number 4341 MUST NOT be assigned to
field MUST be non-zero. either port. The checksum field MUST be non-zero.
LCM: The format is one of the control message formats described in LCM: The format is one of the control message formats described in
this section. At this time, only Map-Request messages are allowed this section. At this time, only Map-Request messages are
to be encapsulated. And in the future, PIM Join-Prune messages allowed to be encapsulated. In the future, PIM Join/Prune
[MLISP] might be allowed. Encapsulating other types of LISP messages [RFC6831] might be allowed. Encapsulating other types
control messages are for further study. When Map-Requests are of LISP control messages is for further study. When
sent for RLOC-probing purposes (i.e the probe-bit is set), they Map-Requests are sent for RLOC-Probing purposes (i.e., the
MUST NOT be sent inside Encapsulated Control Messages. probe-bit is set), they MUST NOT be sent inside Encapsulated
Control Messages.
6.2. Routing Locator Selection 6.2. Routing Locator Selection
Both client-side and server-side may need control over the selection Both the client-side and server-side may need control over the
of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is achieved by selection of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is
manipulating the Priority and Weight fields in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in
messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be gleaned from EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY
received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request messages. be gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request
messages.
The following enumerates different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
the controls that are available: controls that are available:
o Server-side returns one RLOC. Client-side can only use one RLOC. o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use
Server-side has complete control of the selection. one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection.
o Server-side returns a list of RLOC where a subset of the list has o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
the same best priority. Client can only use the subset list has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset
according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In this list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In
case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load- this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and
splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs load-splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs
outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some
sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
list are unreachable. list are unreachable.
o Server-side sets weight of 0 for the RLOC subset list. In this o The server-side sets a Weight of 0 for the RLOC subset list. In
case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is spread this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
across the subset list. Control is shared by the server-side spread across the subset list. Control is shared by the server-
determining the list and the client determining load distribution. side determining the list and the client determining load
Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the server-provided distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
list of RLOCs are unreachable. server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.
o Either side (more likely on the server-side ETR) decides not to o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send
send a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send
send Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the
giving the client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability
reachability and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side
client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner header source ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the
EID and the outer header source RLOC of received packets. The outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR
client-side ITR controls how traffic is returned and can alternate controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer-
using an outer header source RLOC, which then can be added to the header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the
list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or
Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server- Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST
side ETR MUST assume each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority
Priority with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-prefix with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding
encoding cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC cache cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on
on tunnel routers can grow to be very large. Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large.
o A "gleaned" map-cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a o A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a
received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few
seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by
sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner header IP sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP
source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to
this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the map- this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the
cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for
time indicated from the TTL field of a received Map-Reply. When a the time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply.
verified map-cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer
for subsequent packets which have a source EID that matches the occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches
EID-prefix of the verified entry. the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be 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. When reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1. When
the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the
RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply or that RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that
stored in the mapping database system provides reachability stored in the mapping database system provides reachability
information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the
mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing
Locator Reachability Algorithms described in the next section. Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section.
6.3. Routing Locator Reachability 6.3. Routing Locator Reachability
Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently
defined: defined:
1. An ETR may examine the Locator Status Bits in the LISP header of 1. An ETR may examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is
also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original 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 ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
RLOC. RLOC.
2. An ITR may receive an ICMP Network or ICMP Host Unreachable 2. An ITR may receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host
message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that the RLOC is Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that
likely down. Note, trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may
but neither is ignoring them completely. Implementations are not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely.
encouraged to follow current best practices in treating these Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices
conditions. in treating these conditions.
3. An ITR which participates in the global routing system can 3. An ITR that participates in the global routing system can
determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP RIB route exists that determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base
matches the RLOC IP address. (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address.
4. An ITR may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a 4. An ITR may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a
destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use
interworking [INTERWORK] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
non-LISP-capable site. non-LISP-capable site.
5. An ITR may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a 5. An ITR may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a
previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is
likely up since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the
ITR. ITR.
6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up.
7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator Reachability Algorithms 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms
described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing. described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing.
When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
Locator Status Bits from the LISP encapsulated data packet, an ETR Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
will receive up to date status from an encapsulating ITR about will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
IGP as follows: IGP as follows:
o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
route into the site IGP. route into the site IGP.
o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its
default route will either time-out or be withdrawn. default route will either time out or be withdrawn.
Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
originated by the others to determine the Locator Status Bits it sets originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
for them. for them.
RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The
Locator Status Bits in a LISP encapsulated packet are numbered from 0 Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an 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 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 value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the Locator Status Bits field for the significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
packets they encapsulate. the packets they encapsulate.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in
the Locator Status Bits field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the
if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating packets to ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating
an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume using that packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume
RLOC if the corresponding Locator Status Bit returns to a value of 1. using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
Locator Status Bits are associated with a locator-set per EID-prefix. value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set
Therefore, when a locator becomes unreachable, the Locator Status Bit per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the
that corresponds to that locator's position in the list returned by Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the
the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that particular EID- list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that
prefix. 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
are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 address they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32
is configured on a loopback interface. address is configured on a loopback interface.
When ITRs receive ICMP Network or Host Unreachable messages as a When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable
method to determine unreachability, they will refrain from using messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain
Locators which are described in Locator lists of Map-Replies. from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of
However, using this approach is unreliable because many network Map-Replies. However, using this approach is unreliable because many
operators turn off generation of ICMP Unreachable messages. network operators turn off generation of ICMP Destination Unreachable
messages.
If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network or Host Unreachable message, If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host
it MAY originate its own ICMP Unreachable message destined for the Unreachable message, it MAY originate its own ICMP Destination
host that originated the data packet the ITR encapsulated. Unreachable message destined for the host that originated the data
packet the ITR encapsulated.
Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the RIB to see if a Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the RIB to see if a
locator address from a locator-set in a mapping entry matches 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
Locator Status Bits indicate the locator is up. In this case, the Locator-Status-Bits indicate that the Locator is up. In this case,
path from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the locator is not the path 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
Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined. Map-Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been
Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control determined. Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of
messages originated by tunnel routers for active flows, so Locators control messages originated by Tunnel Routers for active flows, so
are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised. Locators 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
detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When an detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When a
Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for
active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply
with priority 255. with Priority 255.
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 asymmetry. In the presence of be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence
unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD
use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is NOT 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 mechanism to
determine reachability. determine reachability.
6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm 6.3.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm
When data flows bidirectionally between locators from different When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different
sites, a data-plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to sites, a data-plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to
determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to
solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N and E bits and places a 24-bit solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit
nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data
packet. 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 N bit set and E ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set and
bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows the path to E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the
and from the ETR is up. path to and from the ETR is up.
The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
in echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process the in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process
echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is variable the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is
and a choice left for the implementation. variable and is 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 the echo-nonce-request state, then the
to the ETR is unreachable. This decision may be overridden by other path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision may be overridden by
locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines the path to other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that
the ETR is down it can switch to another locator for that EID-prefix. the path to 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.
The ITR and ETR may both go into echo-nonce-request state at the same The ITR and ETR may both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the
time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo nonce same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo
requests are sent is an implementation specific setting. However, nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting.
when an ITR is in echo-nonce-request state, it can echo the ETR's However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo
nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and then the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and
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 be the same device as an ITR ETR receiving traffic at a site may not be the same device as an ITR
which transmits traffic from that site or the site to site traffic is that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is
unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.
The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the 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 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 echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
regard the locator unreachable erroneously. An ITR SHOULD only set erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set
the E-bit in a encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is
enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map- enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the
Reply message. 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. See next section for an example of control-plane probing. algorithm. See the next section for an example of control-plane
probing.
6.3.2. RLOC Probing Algorithm 6.3.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm
RLOC Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the
reachability status of one or more locators that it has cached in a reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a
map-cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply
messages are used for RLOC Probing. messages is used for RLOC-Probing.
RLOC probing is done in the control-plane on a timer basis where an RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an
ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator
address from one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as 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 an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to
the ALT like one would when soliciting mapping data. The EID record the mapping database system as one would when soliciting mapping
encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-prefix of the map-cache entry data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of
cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR may include a mapping data record the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR may include a
for its own database mapping information which contains the local mapping data record for its own database mapping information that
EID-prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes are sent contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes
periodically using a jittered timer interval. are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval.
When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it
returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of
the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in
Section 6.1.5. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping data for the Section 6.1.5. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping data for the
EID-prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides the
opportunity for the ITR or PITR, which sent the RLOC-probe to get opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get
mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping
entries. entries.
There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC Probing. The greatest There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC-Probing. The greatest
benefit of RLOC Probing is that it can handle many failure scenarios 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 allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific Locator is
reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust
mechanism for switching to using another locator from the cached mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached
locator. RLOC Probing can also provide rough RTT estimates between a Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT)
pair of locators which can be useful for network management purposes estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network
as well as for selecting low delay paths. The major disadvantage of management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The
RLOC Probing is in the number of control messages required and the major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control
amount of bandwidth used to obtain those benefits, especially if the messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those
requirement for failure detection times are very small. benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times
is very small.
Continued research and testing will attempt to characterize the Continued research and testing will attempt to characterize the
tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message overhead. tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message overhead.
6.4. EID Reachability within a LISP Site 6.4. EID Reachability within a LISP Site
A site may be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and A site may be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and
infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more
prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the EID-Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
reachability to one or more of the EID prefixes within its own site. reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
R-bit associated with its own locator. And when the ETR is also an R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an
ITR, it can clear its locator-status-bit in the encapsulation data ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data
header. header.
It is recognized there are no simple solutions to the site It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site
partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the
EID-prefix range is partitioned. And which locators can reach any EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any
sub-ranges of the EID-prefixes. This problem is under investigation sub-ranges of the EID-Prefixes. This problem is under investigation
with the expectation that experiments will tell us more. Note, this with the expectation that experiments will tell us more. Note that
is not a new problem introduced by the LISP architecture. The this is not a new problem introduced by the LISP architecture. The
problem exists today when a multi-homed site uses BGP to advertise problem exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its
its reachability upstream. reachability upstream.
6.5. Routing Locator Hashing 6.5. 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
locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping: Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:
1. Either a source and destination address hash can be used or the 1. Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional
traditional 5-tuple hash which includes the source and 5-tuple hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash includes
destination addresses, source and destination TCP, UDP, or SCTP the source and destination addresses; source and destination TCP,
port numbers and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next- UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers;
protocol fields of a packet a host originates from within a LISP and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of
site. When a packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site. When a
source and destination addresses only from the header are used to packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and
compute the hash. destination addresses only from the header are used to compute
the hash.
2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of locators 2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
stored in the locator-set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping. stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.
3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of locators 3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
minus 1". Use the remainder to select the locator in the minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the
locator-set. Locator-Set.
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 hashed value in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value
allows core routers which are attached to Link Aggregation Groups allows core routers that 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 that 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 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 balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation. encapsulation.
6.6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 6.6. 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 which know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, we want to which ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, we want
maintain this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs change to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs to
their mappings and inform the sites that are currently communicating change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently
with the ETR site using such mappings. communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.
When adding a new locator record in lexicographic order to the end of When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end of
a locator-set, it is easy to update mappings. We assume new mappings a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings. We assume that new
will maintain the same locator ordering as the old mapping but just mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping
have new locators appended to the end of the list. So some ITRs can but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list. So,
have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old mapping that is some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old
used until they time out. When an ITR has only an old mapping but mapping that is used until they time out. When an ITR has only an
detects bits set in the loc-status-bits that correspond to locators old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that
beyond the list it has cached, it simply ignores them. However, this correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply
can only happen for locator addresses that are lexicographically ignores them. However, this can only happen for locator addresses
greater than the locator addresses in the existing locator-set. that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in the
existing Locator-Set.
When a locator record is inserted in the middle of a locator-set, to When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, to
maintain lexicographic order, the SMR procedure in Section 6.6.2 is maintain lexicographic order, the SMR procedure in Section 6.6.2 is
used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the new locator-status-bit mappings. used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the new Locator-Status-Bit mappings.
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-status-bit to 0. So even if the locator is in the will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0. So, even if the Locator is in
list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs can the list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs
set the locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as well can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as
as setting the corresponding loc-status-bit to 0. This forces ITRs well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This
with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed locator. forces ITRs with old or new mappings to 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-status-bit settings can useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings
be efficiently packed. can be efficiently packed.
We propose here three approaches for locator-set compaction, one We propose here three approaches for Locator-Set compaction: one
operational and two protocol mechanisms. The operational approach operational mechanism and two protocol mechanisms. The operational
uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approaches use the concept approach uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approaches use the
of Solicit-Map-Requests and Map-Versioning. concept of Solicit-Map-Requests and Map-Versioning.
6.6.1. Clock Sweep 6.6.1. 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
count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached. count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached.
The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours. So The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours. So,
there is a 24 hour window to time out old mappings. The following there is a 24-hour window to time out old mappings. The following
clock sweep procedure is used: clock sweep procedure is used:
1. 24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network 1. 24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network
administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock
sweep window. sweep window.
2. During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply 2. During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply
messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records. The TTL messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records. The TTL
for these mappings is set to 1 hour. for these mappings is set to 1 hour.
3. 24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out, 3. 24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out,
and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour. During and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour. During
this 1 hour window the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages this 1-hour window, the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages
with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set to with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set to
1 minute. 1 minute.
4. At the end of the 1 hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply 4. At the end of the 1-hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply
messages with the new (changed) mapping records. So any active messages with the new (changed) mapping records. So, any active
caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not cached, caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not cached,
or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached. The new mappings or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached. The new mappings
are cached with a time to live equal to the TTL in the Map-Reply. are cached with a TTL equal to the TTL in the Map-Reply.
6.6.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) 6.6.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)
Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site
where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for
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 ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their
mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their mappings mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their mappings
updated. As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests (called an updated. As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests (called an
SMR message) from those sites to which it has been sending SMR message) from those sites to which it has been sending
encapsulated data to for the last minute. In particular, an ETR will encapsulated data for the last minute. In particular, an ETR will
send an SMR an ITR to which it has recently sent encapsulated data. send an SMR to an ITR to which it has recently sent encapsulated
data.
An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message. An ITR An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message. An ITR
or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message. or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message.
Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder MUST rate-limited Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder MUST rate-limit
these messages. Rate-limiting can be implemented as a global rate- these messages. Rate-limiting can be implemented as a global rate-
limiter or one rate-limiter per SMR destination. limiter or one rate-limiter per SMR destination.
The following procedure shows how a SMR exchange occurs when a site The following procedure shows how an 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 ETRs at the site 1. When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ETRs at the site
begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each locator begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each Locator
in each map-cache entry the ETR caches. in each Map-Cache entry the ETR caches.
2. A remote ITR which receives the SMR message will schedule sending 2. A remote ITR that receives the SMR message will schedule sending
a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR
message or to the mapping database system. A newly allocated message or to the mapping database system. A newly allocated
random nonce is selected and the EID-prefix used is the one random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one
copied from the SMR message. If the source locator is the only copied from the SMR message. If the source Locator is the only
locator in the cached locator-set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a
Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the
single locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to
accept the Map-Request. accept the Map-Request.
3. The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a 3. The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a
Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. When Map Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. When
Versioning is used, described in Section 6.6.3, an SMR sender can Map-Versioning as described in Section 6.6.3 is used, an SMR
detect if an ITR is using the most up to date database mapping. sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date database
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 that has a nonce from the Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the
SMR-invoked Map-Request. The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate SMR-invoked Map-Request. The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate-
limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion. limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion.
5. The ETRs, at the site with the changed mapping, record the fact 5. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record 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 Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the
the loc-status-bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets
going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending SMR going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending SMR
messages. messages.
Experimentation is in progress to determine the appropriate rate- Experimentation is in progress to determine the appropriate rate-
limit parameters. limit parameters.
For security reasons an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map-Replies. For security reasons, an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited
To avoid map-cache entry corruption by a third-party, a sender of an Map-Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a
SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR receives an SMR- sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR
based Map-Request and the source is not in the locator-set for the receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the
stored map-cache entry, then the responding Map-Request MUST be sent Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding
with an EID destination to the mapping database system. Since the Map-Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping
mapping database system is more secure to reach an authoritative ETR, database system. Since the mapping database system is a more secure
it will deliver the Map-Request to the authoritative source of the way to reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to
mapping data. the authoritative source of the mapping data.
When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not
have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it MAY not send have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it MAY not send
a SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR sends an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR
SMR messages to all locators in the locator-set it has stored in its sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored
map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be sending in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be
packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs until sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs
they need to send, in which case, they will send Map-Requests to until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to
obtain a map-cache entry. obtain a Map-Cache entry.
6.6.3. Database Map Versioning 6.6.3. Database Map-Versioning
When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
ITR so encapsulation can stop to a removed locator and start to a new ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
locator in the locator-set. started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.
An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version
number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs
include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and
detects the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the current detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the
version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in Section 6.6.2 current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in
occurs. Section 6.6.2 occurs.
An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map- An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own
Version number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number. Map-Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects the Source Map-Version When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source
Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a Map- Map-Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent
Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one of in a Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request
the ETRs for the source site. to one of the ETRs for the source site.
A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-prefix. So A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so
values that are greater, are considered to be more recent. A value values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of
of 0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version 0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version
Number conveys no versioning information and an ITR does no Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no
comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers. comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.
A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
well. This is a good way for the Map-Server can assure that all ETRs well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs
for a site registering to it will be Map-Version number synchronized. for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to
Map-Version Number.
See [VERSIONING] for a more detailed analysis and description of See [RFC6834] for a more detailed analysis and description of
Database Map Versioning. Database Map-Versioning.
7. Router Performance Considerations 7. Router Performance Considerations
LISP is designed to be very hardware-based forwarding friendly. A LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". A
few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement
LISP: LISP:
o When a tunnel encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
destination address may not be the address of the router. This destination address may not be the address of the router. This
makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special FIB entries hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
for the EID-prefixes of EIDs served by the ETR (those for which Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
the router provides an RLOC translation). These FIB entries are by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
marked with a flag indicating that control plane processing should translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
be performed. The forwarding logic of testing for particular IP that control-plane processing should be performed. The forwarding
protocol number value is not necessary. There are a few proven logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
cases where no changes to existing deployed hardware were needed necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to
to support the LISP data-plane. existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data-
plane.
o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part
of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support GRE of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support
tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] may already Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
support this action. tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action.
o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on
can be used to select a VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's
VRF's routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings. routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.
For performance issues related to map-cache management, see section For performance issues related to map-cache management, see
Section 12. Section 12.
8. Deployment Scenarios 8. Deployment Scenarios
This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be deployed This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be deployed
and will discuss the pros and cons of each deployment scenario. For and will discuss the pros and cons of each deployment scenario. For
a more detailed deployment recommendation, refer to [LISP-DEPLOY]. a more detailed deployment recommendation, refer to [LISP-DEPLOY].
There are two basic deployment trade-offs to consider: centralized There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized
versus distributed caches and flat, recursive, or re-encapsulating versus distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating
tunneling. When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, Tunneling. When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching,
the following issues should be considered: the following issues should be considered:
o Are the tunnel routers spread out so that the caches are spread o Are the Tunnel Routers spread out so that the caches are spread
across all the memories of each router? A centralized cache is across all the memories of each router? A centralized cache is
when an ITR keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. when an ITR keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to.
The packet takes a direct path to the destination locator. A The packet takes a direct path to the destination Locator. A
distributed cache is when an ITR needs help from other re- distributed cache is when an ITR needs help from other
encapsulating routers because it does not store all the cache re-encapsulating routers because it does not store all the cache
entries for the EIDs is it encapsulating to. So the packet takes entries for the EIDs it is encapsulating to. So, the packet takes
a path through re-encapsulating routers that have a different set a path through re-encapsulating routers that have a different set
of cache entries. of cache entries.
o Should management "touch points" be minimized by choosing few o Should management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a
tunnel routers, just enough for redundancy? few Tunnel Routers, just enough for redundancy?
o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load, o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load,
since caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand, since caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand,
more ETRs does require more management since EID-prefix-to-RLOC using more ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to-
mappings need to be explicitly configured. RLOC mappings need to be explicitly configured.
When deciding on flat, recursive, or re-encapsulation tunneling, the When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating Tunneling, the
following issues should be considered: following issues should be considered:
o Flat tunneling implements a single tunnel between source site and o Flat tunneling implements a single tunnel between the source site
destination site. This generally offers better paths between and destination site. This generally offers better paths between
sources and destinations with a single tunnel path. sources and destinations with a single tunnel path.
o Recursive tunneling is when tunneled traffic is again further o Recursive Tunneling is when tunneled traffic is again further
encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to
perform Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the perform Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the
site has some control since the site is prepending a new tunnel site has some control, since the site is prepending a new tunnel
header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site may have header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site may have
control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if the site's control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if the site's
ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. Recursive ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. Recursive
tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but at the Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but with the
benefit of steering traffic to resource available parts of the benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that have more
network. resources available.
o The technique of re-encapsulation ensures that packets only o The technique of re-encapsulation ensures that packets only
require one tunnel header. So if a packet needs to be rerouted, require one tunnel header. So, if a packet needs to be re-routed,
it is first decapsulated by the ETR and then re-encapsulated with it is first decapsulated by the ETR and then re-encapsulated with
a new tunnel header using a new RLOC. a new tunnel header using a new RLOC.
The next sub-sections will survey where tunnel routers can reside in The next sub-sections will examine where Tunnel Routers can reside in
the network. the network.
8.1. First-hop/Last-hop Tunnel Routers 8.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop Tunnel Routers
By locating tunnel routers close to hosts, the EID-prefix set is at By locating Tunnel Routers close to hosts, the EID-Prefix set is at
the granularity of an IP subnet. So at the expense of more EID- the granularity of an IP subnet. So, at the expense of more
prefix-to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each tunnel router EID-Prefix-to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each Tunnel
can remain relatively small. But caches always depend on the number Router can remain relatively small. But caches always depend on the
of non-aggregated EID destination flows active through these tunnel number of non-aggregated EID destination flows active through these
routers. Tunnel Routers.
With more tunnel routers doing encapsulation, the increase in control With more Tunnel Routers doing encapsulation, the increase in control
traffic grows as well: since the EID-granularity is greater, more traffic grows as well: since the EID granularity is greater, more
Map-Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers. Map-Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers.
The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub
routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network
have better price-memory ratios then their core router counterparts. have better price-memory ratios than their core router counterparts.
Memory is typically less expensive in these devices and fewer routes Memory is typically less expensive in these devices, and fewer routes
are stored (only IGP routes). These devices tend to have excess are stored (only IGP routes). These devices tend to have excess
capacity, both for forwarding and routing state. capacity, both for forwarding and routing states.
LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches. These LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches. These
devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports
facing the Internet. Spare capacity is also often available in these facing the Internet. Spare capacity is also often available in these
devices as well. devices.
8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers 8.2. Border/Edge Tunnel Routers
Using customer-edge (CE) routers for tunnel endpoints allows the EID Using Customer Edge (CE) routers for tunnel endpoints allows the EID
space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of RLOCs space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of RLOCs
assigned to the CE routers for that site. This is the default assigned to the CE routers for that site. This is the default
behavior envisioned in the rest of this specification. behavior envisioned in the rest of this specification.
This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop tunnel This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop Tunnel
router scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management Router scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management
touch points are reduced, allowing better scaling. touch points is reduced, allowing better scaling.
One disadvantage is that less of the network's resources are used to One disadvantage is that fewer network resources are used to reach
reach host endpoints thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain host endpoints, thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain and
and creating network choke points at the CE router. creating network choke points at the CE router.
Note that more than one CE router at a site can be configured with Note that more than one CE router at a site can be configured with
the same IP address. In this case an RLOC is an anycast address. the same IP address. In this case, an RLOC is an anycast address.
This allows resilience between the CE routers. That is, if a CE This allows resilience between the CE routers. That is, if a CE
router fails, traffic is automatically routed to the other routers router fails, traffic is automatically routed to the other routers
using the same anycast address. However, this comes with the using the same anycast address. However, this comes with the
disadvantage where the site cannot control the entrance point when disadvantage where the site cannot control the entrance point when
the anycast route is advertised out from all border routers. Another the anycast route is advertised out from all border routers. Another
disadvantage of using anycast locators is the limited advertisement disadvantage of using anycast Locators is the limited advertisement
scope of /32 (or /128 for IPv6) routes. scope of /32 (or /128 for IPv6) routes.
8.3. ISP Provider-Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers 8.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) Tunnel Routers
Use of ISP PE routers as tunnel endpoint routers is not the typical The use of ISP PE routers as tunnel endpoint routers is not the
deployment scenario envisioned in the specification. This section typical deployment scenario envisioned in this specification. This
attempts to capture some of reasoning behind this preference of section attempts to capture some of the reasoning behind this
implementing LISP on CE routers. preference for implementing LISP on CE routers.
Use of ISP PE routers as tunnel endpoint routers gives an ISP, rather The use of ISP PE routers as tunnel endpoint routers gives an ISP,
than a site, control over the location of the egress tunnel rather than a site, control over the location of the egress tunnel
endpoints. That is, the ISP can decide if the tunnel endpoints are endpoints. That is, the ISP can decide whether the tunnel endpoints
in the destination site (in either CE routers or last-hop routers are in the destination site (in either CE routers or last-hop routers
within a site) or at other PE edges. The advantage of this case is within a site) or at other PE edges. The advantage of this case is
that two tunnel headers can be avoided. By having the PE be the that two tunnel headers can be avoided. By having the PE be the
first router on the path to encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first router on the path to encapsulate, it can choose a TE path
first, and the ETR can decapsulate and re-encapsulate for a tunnel to first, and the ETR can decapsulate and re-encapsulate for a tunnel to
the destination end site. the destination end site.
An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over
where its packets flow or the RLOCs used. Other disadvantages where its packets flow or over the RLOCs used. Other disadvantages
include the difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between include difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between CE
CE and PE routers. and PE routers.
As mentioned in earlier sections a combination of these scenarios is As mentioned in earlier sections, a combination of these scenarios is
possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead, if both site possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead; if both site
and provider want control, then recursive or re-encapsulating tunnels and provider want control, then Recursive or Re-encapsulating Tunnels
are used. are used.
8.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs 8.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs
LISP routers can be deployed behind Network Address Translator (NAT) LISP routers can be deployed behind Network Address Translator (NAT)
devices to provide the same set of packet services hosts have today devices to provide the same set of packet services hosts have today
when they are addressed out of private address space. when they are addressed out of private address space.
It is important to note that a locator address in any LISP control It is important to note that a locator address in any LISP control
message MUST be a globally routable address and therefore SHOULD NOT message MUST be a globally routable address and therefore SHOULD NOT
contain [RFC1918] addresses. If a LISP router is configured with contain [RFC1918] addresses. If a LISP router is configured with
private addresses, they MUST be used only in the outer IP header so private addresses, they MUST be used only in the outer IP header so
the NAT device can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST the NAT device can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST
be translated before encapsulation is performed. Both NAT be translated before encapsulation is performed. Both NAT
translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co-located in translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co-located in
the same device. the same device.
More details on LISP address translation can be found in [INTERWORK]. More details on LISP address translation can be found in [RFC6832].
8.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site 8.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site
When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one
ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second
ITR's cache may not not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC ITR's cache may not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping
mapping entries as the first. If this second ITR does not have these entries as the first. If this second ITR does not have these
mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved
from the mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may from the mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may
increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system. increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system.
Deployment and experimentation will determine whether this issue Deployment and experimentation will determine whether this issue
requires more attention. requires more attention.
9. Traceroute Considerations 9. Traceroute Considerations
When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a
destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it
to see the entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from ITR to to see the entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR
ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single hop. to the ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single
However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the user can hop. However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the
see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP host to a user can see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP host
destination LISP host: to a destination LISP host:
Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs): Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs):
source-host ---> first-hop ... next-hop ---> ITR source host ---> first hop ... next hop ---> ITR
Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs): Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs):
ITR ---> next-hop ... next-hop ---> ETR ITR ---> next hop ... next hop ---> ETR
Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs): Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs):
ETR ---> next-hop ... last-hop ---> destination-host ETR ---> next hop ... last hop ---> destination host
For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
in the normal manner as they are today. The ITR performs a TTL in the normal manner as they are today. The ITR performs a TTL
decrement and test for 0 before encapsulating. So the ITR hop is decrement and tests for 0 before encapsulating. Therefore, the ITR's
seen by the traceroute source has an EID address (the address of hop is seen by the traceroute source as having an EID address (the
site-facing interface). address of the site-facing interface).
For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer
header, so the destination of the ICMP messages are to the ITR RLOC header, so the destinations of the ICMP messages are the ITR RLOC
address, the source RLOC address of the encapsulated traceroute address and the source RLOC address of the encapsulated traceroute
packet. The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to inspect the packet. The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to inspect the
traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to the address of traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to the address of
the traceroute client as well as retaining the core router IP address the traceroute client and also retain the core router IP address in
in the ICMP message. This is so the traceroute client can display the ICMP message. This is so the traceroute client can display the
the core router address (the RLOC address) in the traceroute output. core router address (the RLOC address) in the traceroute output. The
The ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to the TTL decrement to ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to the TTL decrement to 0,
0 like the previous core routers did. as the previous core routers did.
For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be
decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent into decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent into
the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't the the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't the
final destination. If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on the final destination. If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on the
path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop
router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the
source EID of the traceroute client. The ICMP message will be source EID of the traceroute client. The ICMP message will be
encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the
originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be delivered originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be delivered
to the host. to the host.
9.1. IPv6 Traceroute 9.1. IPv6 Traceroute
IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above since the IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above, since the
entire traceroute data packet is included in ICMP Time Exceeded entire traceroute data packet is included in the ICMP Time Exceeded
message payload. Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special message payload. Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special
attention for forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute source. attention to forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute source.
9.2. IPv4 Traceroute 9.2. IPv4 Traceroute
For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure since IPv4 For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure, since IPv4
ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and 8 ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and
octets that follow the IP header. Therefore, when a core router 8 octets that follow the IP header. Therefore, when a core router
sends an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in the sends an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in the
ICMP payload is the encapsulated header it prepended followed by a ICMP payload is the encapsulated header it prepended, followed by a
UDP header. The original invoking IP header, and therefore the UDP header. The original invoking IP header, and therefore the
identity of the traceroute source is lost. identity of the traceroute source, is lost.
The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache traceroute The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache traceroute
IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding IPv4 IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding IPv4
Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR. The Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR. The
ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers
of traceroute packets. It will select a 16-bit number as a key to of traceroute packets. It will select a 16-bit number as a key to
find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received. find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received.
When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the
16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header. 16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header.
When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP
header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload,
thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the
traceroute source. The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload traceroute source. The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload
and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source
retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded
message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute
destination). destination).
The signature of a traceroute packet comes in two forms. The first The signature of a traceroute packet comes in two forms. The first
form is encoded as a UDP message where the destination port is form is encoded as a UDP message where the destination port is
inspected for a range of values. The second form is encoded as an inspected for a range of values. The second form is encoded as an
ICMP message where the IP identification field is inspected for a ICMP message where the IP identification field is inspected for a
well-known value. well-known value.
9.3. Traceroute using Mixed Locators 9.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators
When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and
the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, you the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, one
cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute. Segment 2 of the cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute. Segment 2 of the
traceroute can not be conveyed to the traceroute source since it is traceroute cannot be conveyed to the traceroute source, since it is
expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format
for the type of traceroute it originated. Therefore, in this case, for the type of traceroute it originated. Therefore, in this case,
segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has to segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has to
do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer, do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer,
encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated
using an RLOC from a different address family. This will cause no using an RLOC from a different address family. This will cause no
TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR. TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR.
10. Mobility Considerations 10. Mobility Considerations
There are several kinds of mobility of which only some might be of There are several kinds of mobility, of which only some might be of
concern to LISP. Essentially they are as follows. concern to LISP. Essentially, they are as follows.
10.1. Site Mobility 10.1. Site Mobility
A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and
its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes upstream its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes upstream
providers. Changes in EID-RLOC mappings for sites are expected to be providers. Changes in EID-to-RLOC mappings for sites are expected to
handled by configuration, outside of the LISP protocol. be handled by configuration, outside of LISP.
10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility 10.2. Slow Endpoint Mobility
An individual endpoint wishes to move, but is not concerned about An individual endpoint wishes to move but is not concerned about
maintaining session continuity. Renumbering is involved. LISP can maintaining session continuity. Renumbering is involved. LISP can
help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by
decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces
used by its ISPs. [RFC4984] used by its ISPs [RFC4984].
10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility 10.3. Fast Endpoint Mobility
Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively
rapidly, changing its IP layer network attachment point. Maintenance rapidly, changing its IP-layer network attachment point. Maintenance
of session continuity is a goal. This is where the Mobile IPv4 of session continuity is a goal. This is where the Mobile IPv4
[RFC5944] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used, [RFC5944] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used and
and primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored. primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored.
The problem is that as an endpoint moves, it may require changes to The problem is that as an endpoint moves, it may require changes to
the mapping between its EID and a set of RLOCs for its new network the mapping between its EID and a set of RLOCs for its new network
location. When this is added to the overhead of mobile IP binding location. When this is added to the overhead of Mobile IP binding
updates, some packets might be delayed or dropped. updates, some packets might be delayed or dropped.
In IPv4 mobility, when an endpoint is away from home, packets to it In IPv4 mobility, when an endpoint is away from home, packets to it
are encapsulated and forwarded via a home agent which resides in the are encapsulated and forwarded via a home agent that resides in the
home area the endpoint's address belongs to. The home agent will home area the endpoint's address belongs to. The home agent will
encapsulate and forward packets either directly to the endpoint or to encapsulate and forward packets either directly to the endpoint or to
a foreign agent which resides where the endpoint has moved to. a foreign agent that resides where the endpoint has moved to.
Packets from the endpoint may be sent directly to the correspondent Packets from the endpoint may be sent directly to the correspondent
node, may be sent via the foreign agent, or may be reverse-tunneled node, may be sent via the foreign agent, or may be reverse-tunneled
back to the home agent for delivery to the mobile node. As the back to the home agent for delivery to the mobile node. As the
mobile node's EID or available RLOC changes, LISP EID-to-RLOC mobile node's EID or available RLOC changes, LISP EID-to-RLOC
mappings are required for communication between the mobile node and mappings are required for communication between the mobile node and
the home agent, whether via foreign agent or not. As a mobile the home agent, whether via the foreign agent or not. As a mobile
endpoint changes networks, up to three LISP mapping changes may be endpoint changes networks, up to three LISP mapping changes may be
required: required:
o The mobile node moves from an old location to a new visited o The mobile node moves from an old location to a new visited
network location and notifies its home agent that it has done so. network location and notifies its home agent that it has done so.
The Mobile IPv4 control packets the mobile node sends pass through The Mobile IPv4 control packets the mobile node sends pass through
one of the new visited network's ITRs, which needs an EID-RLOC one of the new visited network's ITRs, which needs an EID-to-RLOC
mapping for the home agent. mapping for the home agent.
o The home agent might not have the EID-RLOC mappings for the mobile o The home agent might not have the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the
node's "care-of" address or its foreign agent in the new visited mobile node's "care-of" address or its foreign agent in the new
network, in which case it will need to acquire them. visited network, in which case it will need to acquire them.
o When packets are sent directly to the correspondent node, it may o When packets are sent directly to the correspondent node, it may
be that no traffic has been sent from the new visited network to be that no traffic has been sent from the new visited network to
the correspondent node's network, and the new visited network's the correspondent node's network, and the new visited network's
ITR will need to obtain an EID-RLOC mapping for the correspondent ITR will need to obtain an EID-to-RLOC mapping for the
node's site. correspondent node's site.
In addition, if the IPv4 endpoint is sending packets from the new In addition, if the IPv4 endpoint is sending packets from the new
visited network using its original EID, then LISP will need to visited network using its original EID, then LISP will need to
perform a route-returnability check on the new EID-RLOC mapping for perform a route-returnability check on the new EID-to-RLOC mapping
that EID. for that EID.
In IPv6 mobility, packets can flow directly between the mobile node In IPv6 mobility, packets can flow directly between the mobile node
and the correspondent node in either direction. The mobile node uses and the correspondent node in either direction. The mobile node uses
its "care-of" address (EID). In this case, the route-returnability its "care-of" address (EID). In this case, the route-returnability
check would not be needed but one more LISP mapping lookup may be check would not be needed but one more LISP mapping lookup may be
required instead: required instead:
o As above, three mapping changes may be needed for the mobile node o As above, three mapping changes may be needed for the mobile node
to communicate with its home agent and to send packets to the to communicate with its home agent and to send packets to the
correspondent node. correspondent node.
o In addition, another mapping will be needed in the correspondent o In addition, another mapping will be needed in the correspondent
node's ITR, in order for the correspondent node to send packets to node's ITR, in order for the correspondent node to send packets to
the mobile node's "care-of" address (EID) at the new network the mobile node's "care-of" address (EID) at the new network
location. location.
When both endpoints are mobile the number of potential mapping When both endpoints are mobile, the number of potential mapping
lookups increases accordingly. lookups increases accordingly.
As a mobile node moves there are not only mobility state changes in As a mobile node moves, there are not only mobility state changes in
the mobile node, correspondent node, and home agent, but also state the mobile node, correspondent node, and home agent, but also state
changes in the ITRs and ETRs for at least some EID-prefixes. changes in the ITRs and ETRs for at least some EID-Prefixes.
The goal is to support rapid adaptation, with little delay or packet The goal is to support rapid adaptation, with little delay or packet
loss for the entire system. Also IP mobility can be modified to loss for the entire system. Also, IP mobility can be modified to
require fewer mapping changes. In order to increase overall system require fewer mapping changes. In order to increase overall system
performance, there may be a need to reduce the optimization of one performance, there may be a need to reduce the optimization of one
area in order to place fewer demands on another. area in order to place fewer demands on another.
In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information. When a packet In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information. When a packet
arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-RLOC mapping and use that arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-to-RLOC mapping and use that
mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID. It can do this after mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID. It can do this after
performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new
network location does have a internal route to that endpoint. network location does have an internal route to that endpoint.
However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node assigned However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node assigned
the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised. the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised.
Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which all Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which all
routing information is disseminated before packets can be forwarded. routing information is disseminated before packets can be forwarded.
In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future
use, we are moving to an environment where some information may have use, we are moving to an environment where some information may have
to be obtained after packets are in flight. Modifications to IP to be obtained after packets are in flight. Modifications to IP
mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of
the overall system. Anything which decreases the number of new EID- the overall system. Anything that decreases the number of new
RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the validity of EID-to-RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the
an EID-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful. validity of an EID-to-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful.
10.4. Fast Network Mobility 10.4. Fast Network Mobility
In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly changing In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly changing
xTRs. A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large as xTRs. A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large as
a whole site. This is different from site mobility in that it is a whole site. This is different from site mobility in that it is
fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility
in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs. However, the mechanisms in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs. However, the mechanisms
are the same and there is no new overhead in LISP. A map request for are the same, and there is no new overhead in LISP. A map request
any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile prefix. for any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile prefix.
If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be useful If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be useful
to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic
updates of the database. updates of the database.
The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be
explored further. Specific improvements to the entire system will explored further. Specific improvements to the entire system will
depend on the details of mapping mechanisms. Mapping mechanisms depend on the details of mapping mechanisms. Mapping mechanisms
should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for
mobile nodes. mobile nodes.
10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility 10.5. LISP Mobile Node Mobility
A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility
by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions
and acting as a simple ITR/ETR. By doing this, such a "LISP mobile and acting as a simple ITR/ETR. By doing this, such a "LISP mobile
node" can use topologically-independent EID IP addresses that are not node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are not
advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing
system. These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system system. These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system
(in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to (in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to
only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node. only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node.
Refer to the LISP Mobility Architecture specification [LISP-MN] for Refer to [LISP-MN] for more details.
more details.
11. Multicast Considerations 11. Multicast Considerations
A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
architecture is an identifier of a grouping of topologically architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself
does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast
routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates, routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates,
determines where the receivers are located. determine where the receivers are located.
In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
a Routing Locator. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs a Routing Locator. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs
to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP
header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP
header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID. header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID.
The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address), The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address),
prepended by a LISP router, will use the same group address as the prepended by a LISP router, will use the same group address as the
destination Routing Locator. destination Routing Locator.
Having said that, only the source EID and source Routing Locator Having said that, only the source EID and source Routing Locator need
needs to be dealt with. Therefore, an ITR merely needs to put its to be dealt with. Therefore, an ITR merely needs to put its own IP
own IP address in the source Routing Locator field when prepending address in the source 'Routing Locator' field when prepending the
the outer IP header. This source Routing Locator address, like any outer IP header. This source Routing Locator address, like any other
other Routing Locator address MUST be globally routable. Routing Locator address, MUST be globally routable.
Therefore, an EID-to-RLOC mapping does not need to be performed by an Therefore, an EID-to-RLOC mapping does not need to be performed by an
ITR when a received data packet is a multicast data packet or when ITR when a received data packet is a multicast data packet or when
processing a source-specific Join (either by IGMPv3 or PIM). But the processing a source-specific Join (either by IGMPv3 or PIM). But the
source Routing Locator is decided by the multicast routing protocol source Routing Locator is decided by the multicast routing protocol
in a receiver site. That is, an EID to Routing Locator translation in a receiver site. That is, an EID-to-RLOC translation is done at
is done at control-time. control time.
Another approach is to have the ITR not encapsulate a multicast Another approach is to have the ITR not encapsulate a multicast
packet and allow the host built packet to flow into the core even if packet and allow the packet built by the host to flow into the core
the source address is allocated out of the EID namespace. If the even if the source address is allocated out of the EID namespace. If
RPF-Vector TLV [RFC5496] is used by PIM in the core, then core the RPF-Vector TLV [RFC5496] is used by PIM in the core, then core
routers can RPF to the ITR (the Locator address which is injected routers can RPF to the ITR (the locator address, which is injected
into core routing) rather than the host source address (the EID into core routing) rather than the host source address (the EID
address which is not injected into core routing). address, which is not injected into core routing).
To avoid any EID-based multicast state in the network core, the first To avoid any EID-based multicast state in the network core, the first
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 are described in [RFC6831] and
[MLISP]. [RFC6832].
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 (see Section 3) mechanisms ETR spoofing by using route-returnability (see Section 3) mechanisms
evidenced by the use of a 24-bit Nonce field in the LISP evidenced by the use of a 24-bit 'Nonce' field in the LISP
encapsulation header and a 64-bit Nonce field in the LISP control encapsulation header and a 64-bit 'Nonce' field in the LISP control
message. 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 (DoS)
On-path attackers can perform far more serious attacks, but on-path attack. On-path attackers can perform far more serious attacks, but
attackers can launch serious attacks in the current Internet as well, on-path attackers can launch serious attacks in the current Internet
including eavesdropping, blocking or redirecting traffic. See more as well, including eavesdropping, blocking, or redirecting traffic.
discussion on this topic in Section 6.1.5.1. 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 heavyweight authentication
system. These systems challenge the scalability of LISP which was a system. These systems challenge one of the primary design goals of
primary design goal. LISP -- scalability.
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
limiting the number of data-triggered Map-Replies. rate-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
the priority and weights provided by the ETR in its Map-Reply. This the Priority and Weights provided by the ETR in its Map-Reply. This
traffic steering would be limited to the traffic that is sent by this traffic-steering would be limited to the traffic that is sent by this
ITR's site, and no more severe than if the site initiated a bandwidth ITR's site and no more severe than if the site initiated a bandwidth
DoS attack on (one of) the ETR's ingress links. The ITR's site would DoS attack on (one of) the ETR's ingress links. The ITR's site would
typically gain no benefit from not respecting the weights, and would typically gain no benefit from not respecting the Weights and would
likely to receive better service by abiding by them. likely receive better service by abiding by them.
To deal with map-cache exhaustion attempts in an ITR/PITR, the To deal with map-cache exhaustion attempts in an ITR/PITR, the
implementation should consider putting a maximum cap on the number of implementation should consider putting a maximum cap on the number of
entries stored with a reserve list for special or frequently accessed entries stored with a reserve list for special or frequently accessed
sites. This should be a configuration policy control set by the sites. This should be a configuration policy control set by the
network administrator who manages ITRs and PITRs. When overlapping network administrator who manages ITRs and PITRs. When overlapping
EID-prefixes occur across multiple map-cache entries, the integrity EID-Prefixes occur across multiple Map-Cache entries, the integrity
of the set must be wholly maintained. So if a more-specific entry of the set must be wholly maintained. So, if a more-specific entry
cannot be added due to reaching the maximum cap, then none of the cannot be added due to reaching the maximum cap, then none of the
less specifics should be stored in the map-cache. less-specific entries should be stored in the map-cache.
Given that the ITR/PITR maintains a cache of EID-to-RLOC mappings, Given that the ITR/PITR maintains a cache of EID-to-RLOC mappings,
cache sizing and maintenance is an issue to be kept in mind during cache sizing and maintenance are issues to be kept in mind during
implementation. It is a good idea to have instrumentation in place implementation. It is a good idea to have instrumentation in place
to detect thrashing of the cache. Implementation experimentation to detect thrashing of the cache. Implementation experimentation
will be used to determine which cache management strategies work will be used to determine which cache management strategies work
best. In general, it is difficult to defend against cache trashing best. In general, it is difficult to defend against cache-thrashing
attacks. It should be noted that an undersized cache in an ITR/PITR attacks. It should be noted that an undersized cache in an ITR/PITR
not only causes adverse affect on the site or region they support, not only causes adverse effects on the site or region it supports but
but may also cause increased Map-Request load on the mapping system. may also cause increased Map-Request loads on the mapping system.
"Piggybacked" mapping data discussed in Section 6.1.3 specifies how "Piggybacked" mapping data as discussed in Section 6.1.3 specifies
to handle such mappings and includes the possibility for an ETR to how to handle such mappings and includes the possibility for an ETR
temporarily accept such a mapping before verification when running in to temporarily accept such a mapping before verification when running
"trusted" environments. In such cases, there is a potential threat in "trusted" environments. In such cases, there is a potential
that a fake mapping could be inserted (even if only for a short threat that a fake mapping could be inserted (even if only for a
period) into a map-cache. As noted in Section 6.1.3, an ETR MUST be short period) into a map-cache. As noted in Section 6.1.3, an ETR
specifically configured to run in such a mode and might usefully only MUST be specifically configured to run in such a mode and might
consider some specific ITRs as also running in that same trusted usefully only consider some specific ITRs as also running in that
environment. same trusted environment.
There is a security risk implicit in the fact that ETRs generate the There is a security risk implicit in the fact that ETRs generate the
EID prefix to which they are responding. An ETR can claim a shorter EID-Prefix to which they are responding. An ETR can claim a shorter
prefix than it is actually responsible for. Various mechanisms to prefix than it is actually responsible for. Various mechanisms to
ameliorate or resolve this issue will be examined in the future, ameliorate or resolve this issue will be examined in the future
[LISP-SEC]. [LISP-SEC].
Spoofing of inner header addresses of LISP encapsulated packets is Spoofing of inner-header addresses of LISP-encapsulated packets is
possible like with any tunneling mechanism. ITRs MUST verify the possible, as with any tunneling mechanism. ITRs MUST verify the
source address of a packet to be an EID that belongs to the site's source address of a packet to be an EID that belongs to the site's
EID-prefix range prior to encapsulation. An ETR must only EID-Prefix range prior to encapsulation. An ETR must only
decapsulate and forward datagrams with an inner header destination decapsulate and forward datagrams with an inner-header destination
that matches one of its EID-prefix ranges. If, upon receipt and that matches one of its EID-Prefix ranges. If, upon receipt and
decapsulation, the destination EID of a datagram does not match one decapsulation, the destination EID of a datagram does not match one
of the ETR's configured EID-prefixes, the ETR MUST drop the datagram. of the ETR's configured EID-Prefixes, the ETR MUST drop the datagram.
If a LISP encapsulated packet arrives at an ETR, it SHOULD compare If a LISP-encapsulated packet arrives at an ETR, it SHOULD compare
the inner header source EID address and the outer header source RLOC the inner-header source EID address and the outer-header source RLOC
address with the mapping that exists in the mapping database. Then address with the mapping that exists in the mapping database. Then,
when spoofing attacks occur, the outer header source RLOC address can when spoofing attacks occur, the outer-header source RLOC address can
be used to trace back the attack to the source site, using existing be used to trace back the attack to the source site, using existing
operational tools. operational tools.
This experimental specification does not address automated key This experimental specification does not address automated key
management (AKM). BCP 107 provides guidance in this area. In management (AKM). BCP 107 [RFC4107] provides guidance in this area.
addition, at the time of this writing, substantial work is being In addition, at the time of this writing, substantial work is being
undertaken to improve security of the routing system [KARP], [RPKI], undertaken to improve security of the routing system [RFC6518]
[BGP-SEC], [LISP-SEC]. Future work on LISP should address BCP-107 as [RFC6480] [BGP-SEC] [LISP-SEC]. Future work on LISP should address
well as other open security considerations, which may require changes the issues discussed in BCP 107 as well as other open security
to this specification. considerations, which may require changes to this specification.
13. Network Management Considerations 13. Network Management Considerations
Considerations for Network Management tools exist so the LISP Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
protocol suite can be operationally managed. The mechanisms can be protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be
found in [LISP-MIB] and [LISP-LIG]. found in [LISP-MIB] and [RFC6835].
14. IANA Considerations 14. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the LISP Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the LISP
specification, in accordance with BCP 26 and RFC 5226 [RFC5226]. specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226].
There are four name spaces in LISP that require registration: There are four namespaces (listed in the sub-sections below) in LISP
that have been registered.
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", and "First Come First Served".
14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields 14.1. LISP ACT and Flag Fields
New ACT values (Section 6.1.4) 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 6.1.4). specification (Section 6.1.4).
In addition, the LISP protocol has a number of flag and reserved In addition, LISP has a number of flag fields and reserved fields,
fields, such as the LISP header flags field (Section 5.3). New bits such as the LISP header flags field (Section 5.3). New bits for
for flags can be taken into use from these fields through IETF review flags in these fields can be implemented after IETF review or IESG
or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA. 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
127 are to be assigned by IETF review or IESG approval. 0-127 are to be assigned by IETF review or IESG approval.
Type Codes 128 - 255 are available on a First Come First Served Type Codes 128-255 are available according to the [RFC5226] First
policy. Come First Served policy.
This registry, initially empty, is constructed for future-use This registry, initially empty, is constructed for future use in
experimental work of LCAF values. See [LCAF] for details for other experimental work related to LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
possible unapproved address encodings. The unapproved LCAF encodings values. See [LCAF] for details of other possible unapproved address
are an area for further study and experimentation. encodings. The unapproved LCAF encodings 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 and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA is lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has updated
requested to update the description for udp ports 4341 and 4342 as the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows:
follows:
lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control 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 [RFC4868]
Number values are in the range of 0 to 65355. The allocation of Number values are in the range of 0 to 65535. The allocation of
values is on a first come first serve basis. values is on a first come first served 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 the following:
o At present, only [ALT] is defined for implementing a database of o At present, only [RFC6836] is defined for implementing a database
EID-to-RLOC mapping information. Additional research on other of EID-to-RLOC mapping information. Additional research on other
mapping database systems is strongly encouraged. mapping database systems is strongly encouraged.
o Failure and recovery of LISP site partitioning (see Section 6.4), o Failure and recovery of LISP site partitioning (see Section 6.4)
in the presence of redundant configuration (see Section 8.5) needs in the presence of redundant configuration (see Section 8.5) needs
further research and experimentation. further research and experimentation.
o The characteristics of map-cache management under exceptional o The characteristics of map-cache management under exceptional
conditions, such as denial-of-service attacks are not fully conditions, such as denial-of-service attacks, are not fully
understood. Further experience is needed to determine whether understood. Further experience is needed to determine whether
current caching methods are practical or in need of further current caching methods are practical or in need of further
development. In particular, the performance, scaling and security development. In particular, the performance, scaling, and
characteristics of the map-cache will be discovered as part of security characteristics of the map-cache will be discovered as
this experiment. Performance metrics to be observed are packet part of this experiment. Performance metrics to be observed are
reordering associated with the LISP data probe and loss of the packet reordering associated with the LISP Data-Probe and loss of
first packet in a flow associated with map-caching. The impact of the first packet in a flow associated with map-caching. The
these upon TCP will be observed. See Section 12 for additional impact of these upon TCP will be observed. See Section 12 for
thoughts and considerations. additional thoughts and considerations.
o Preliminary work has been done to ensure that sites employing LISP o Preliminary work has been done to ensure that sites employing LISP
can interconnect with the rest of the Internet. This work is can interconnect with the rest of the Internet. This work is
documented in [INTERWORK], but further experimentation and documented in [RFC6832], but further experimentation and
experience is needed. experience are needed.
o At present, no mechanism for automated key management for message o At present, no mechanism for automated key management for message
authentication is defined. Addressing automated key management is authentication is defined. Addressing automated key management is
necessary before this specification could be developed into a necessary before this specification can be developed into a
standards track RFC. See Section 12 for further details regarding Standards Track RFC. See Section 12 for further details regarding
security considerations. security considerations.
o In order to maintain security and stability, Internet Protocols o In order to maintain security and stability, Internet protocols
typically isolate the control and data planes. Therefore, user typically isolate the control and data planes. Therefore, user
activity cannot cause control plane state to be created or activity cannot cause control-plane state to be created or
destroyed. LISP does not maintain this separation. The degree to destroyed. LISP does not maintain this separation. The degree to
which the loss of separation impacts security and stability is a which the loss of separation impacts security and stability is a
topic for experimental observation. topic for experimental observation.
o LISP allows for different mapping database systems to be used. o LISP allows for the use of different mapping database systems.
While only one [ALT] is currently well-defined, each mapping While only one [RFC6836] is currently well defined, each mapping
database will likely have some impact on the security of the EID- database will likely have some impact on the security of the
to-RLOC mappings. How each mapping database system's security EID-to-RLOC mappings. How each mapping database system's security
properties impact on LISP overall is for further study. properties impact LISP overall is for further study.
o An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic, o An examination of the implications of LISP on Internet traffic,
applications, routers, and security is needed. This will help to applications, routers, and security is needed. This will help
understand the consequences for network stability, routing implementors understand the consequences for network stability,
protocol function, routing scalability, migration and backward routing protocol function, routing scalability, migration and
compatibility, and implementation scalability (as influenced by backward compatibility, and implementation scalability (as
additional protocol components, additional state, and additional influenced by additional protocol components; additional state;
processing for encapsulation, decapsulation, liveness). and additional processing for encapsulation, decapsulation, and
liveness).
o Experiments need to verify that LISP produces no significant o Experiments need to verify that LISP produces no significant
change in the behavior of protocols run between end-systems over a change in the behavior of protocols run between end-systems over a
LISP infrastructure versus being run directly between those same LISP infrastructure versus being run directly between those same
end-systems. end-systems.
o Experiments need to verify that the issues raised in the Critique o Experiments need to verify that the issues raised in the Critique
section of [RFC6115] are either insignificant or have been section of [RFC6115] are either insignificant or have been
addressed by updates to the LISP protocol. addressed by updates to LISP.
Other LISP documents may also include open issues and areas for Other LISP documents may also include open issues and areas for
future work. future work.
16. References 16. References
16.1. Normative References 16.1. Normative References
[ALT] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "LISP
Alternative Topology (LISP-ALT)",
draft-ietf-lisp-alt-10.txt (work in progress).
[LISP-MS] Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "LISP Map Server",
draft-ietf-lisp-ms-16.txt (work in progress).
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981. September 1981.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
skipping to change at page 77, line 49 skipping to change at page 71, line 5
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by
an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002. an On-line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness [RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005. Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256,
HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
May 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path [RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009. Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", [RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010. RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6115] Li, T., "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture", [RFC6115] Li, T., "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture",
RFC 6115, February 2011. RFC 6115, February 2011.
[RFC6234] Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
(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.
[VERSIONING] [RFC6833] Farinacci, D. and V. Fuller, "Locator/ID Separation
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP Mapping Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
Versioning", draft-ietf-lisp-map-versioning-09.txt (work January 2013.
in progress).
16.2. Informative References [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
January 2013.
[AFI] IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY [RFC6836] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
NUMBERS "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers. Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, January 2013.
[AFI-REGISTRY] 16.2. Informative References
IANA, "Address Family Indicators (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBER registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/
address-family-numbers/
address-family-numbers.xml#address-family-numbers-1.
[BGP-SEC] Lepinski, M., "An Overview of BGPSEC", [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Numbers",
draft-lepinski-bgpsec-overview-00.txt (work in progress), <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
March 2011.
[BGP-SEC] Lepinski, M. and S. Turner, "An Overview of BGPSEC", Work
in Progress, May 2012.
[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed
Enhancement to the Internet Architecture", Internet- Enhancement to the Internet Architecture", 1999,
Draft http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt. <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
[CONS] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A [CONS] Brim, S., Chiappa, N., Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Lewis,
Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP", D., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A Content distribution
draft-meyer-lisp-cons-04.txt (work in progress). Overlay Network Service for LISP", Work in Progress,
April 2008.
[EMACS] Brim, S., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Curran, "EID [EMACS] Brim, S., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Curran, "EID
Mappings Multicast Across Cooperating Systems for LISP", Mappings Multicast Across Cooperating Systems for LISP",
draft-curran-lisp-emacs-00.txt (work in progress). Work in Progress, November 2007.
[INTERWORK]
Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking LISP with IPv4 and IPv6",
draft-ietf-lisp-interworking-06.txt (work in progress).
[KARP] Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and Authentication for
Routing Protocols (KARP)Design Guidelines",
draft-ietf-karp-design-guide-06.txt (work in progress),
October 2011.
[LCAF] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [LCAF] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt (work in Address Format (LCAF)", Work in Progress, January 2013.
progress).
[LISA96] Lear, E., Katinsky, J., Coffin, J., and D. Tharp, [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin,
"Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix . "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System
Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996.
[LISP-DEPLOY] [LISP-DEPLOY]
Jakab, L., Coras, F., Domingo-Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F.,
"LISP Network Element Deployment Considerations", Domingo-Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "LISP Network Element
draft-ietf-lisp-deployment-05.txt (work in progress). Deployment Considerations", Work in Progress,
October 2012.
[LISP-LIG]
Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "LISP Internet Groper (LIG)",
draft-ietf-lisp-lig-06.txt (work in progress).
[LISP-MAIN]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-farinacci-lisp-12.txt (work in progress).
[LISP-MIB] [LISP-MIB] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "LISP MIB", Work
Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "LISP MIB", in Progress, January 2013.
draft-ietf-lisp-mib-07.txt (work in progress).
[LISP-MN] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Lewis, D., and D. Meyer, "LISP [LISP-MN] Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobility Architecture", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-08.txt (work Mobile Node", Work in Progress, October 2012.
in progress).
[LISP-SEC] [LISP-SEC] Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., Saucez, D., and O.
Maino, F., Ermagon, V., Cabellos, A., Sausez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", Work in Progress,
Bonaventure, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", October 2012.
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-04.txt (work in progress).
[LOC-ID-ARCH] [LOC-ID-ARCH]
Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of
Locator/ID Separation", Locator/ID Separation", Work in Progress, January 2009.
draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-02.txt (work in progress).
[MLISP] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas,
"LISP for Multicast Environments",
draft-ietf-lisp-multicast-14.txt (work in progress).
[NERD] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel EID to RLOC Database",
draft-lear-lisp-nerd-08.txt (work in progress).
[OPENLISP] [OPENLISP] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
Iannone, L. and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008.
Report", draft-iannone-openlisp-implementation-01.txt
(work in progress).
[RADIR] Narten, T., "Routing and Addressing Problem Statement", [RADIR] Narten, T., "On the Scalability of Internet Routing", Work
draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt (work in in Progress, February 2010.
progress).
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[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.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
[RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
September 2005. September 2005.
[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.
[RPKI] Lepinski, M., "An Infrastructure to Support Secure [RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
Internet Routing", draft-ietf-sidr-arch-13.txt (work in Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, February 2012.
progress), February 2011.
[RFC6518] Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and Authentication for
Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines", RFC 6518,
February 2012.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, January 2013.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, January 2013.
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, January 2013.
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, January 2013.
[UDP-TUNNELS] [UDP-TUNNELS]
Eubanks, M. and P. Chimento, "UDP Checksums for Tunneled Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
Packets", draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-05.txt (work in UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", Work in Progress,
progress), October 2012. January 2013.
[UDP-ZERO] [UDP-ZERO] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerland, "IPv6 UDP Checksum for the use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
Considerations", draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-07.txt (work in Work in Progress, December 2012.
progress), October 2012.
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 reviews of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
practical and incremental transition for the Internet. practical and incremental transition for the Internet.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have
contributed discussion and ideas to the making of this proposal. contributed discussions 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, Terry Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry
Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van
Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien
Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David
Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin, Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin,
Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari
Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu, Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu,
Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina
Ermagan, Albert Cabellos, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Ermagan, Albert Cabellos, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White,
Clarence Filsfils, and Alia Atlas. Clarence Filsfils, and Alia Atlas.
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 An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working
LISP working group draft. group document that became this RFC.
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 that the set of LISP
were being prepared for IESG last call, for his meticulous review and documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
detail commentary on the 7 working group last call drafts progressing meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
toward experimental RFCs. last call documents progressing toward experimental RFCs.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-24.txt
o Posted November 2012 for final pre-RFC version.
o Move draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums reference back to Informative
References section.
B.2. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-22.txt
o Posted February 2012 to reflect final DISCUSS comments from Adrian
Farrel.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-21.txt
o Posted February 2012 to reflect DISCUSS comments from Adrian
Farrel, Stewart Bryant, and Wesley Eddy.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-20.txt
o Posted January 2012 for resolution to Adrian Farrel's security
comments as well as additions to the end of section 2, Elwyn
Davies Gen-Art comments, and Ralph Droms' IANA and EID definition
comments.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-19.txt
o Posted January 2012 for Stephen Farrell's comment resolution.
B.7. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-17.txt
o Posted December 2011 after IETF last call comments.
o Make Map-Notify port assignment be 4342 in both source and
destination ports. This change was agreed on and put in [LISP-MS]
but was not updated in this spec.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-16.txt
o Posted October 2011 after AD review by Jari.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-15.txt
o Posted July 2011. Fixing IDnits errors.
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"
section.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-14.txt
o Post working group last call and pre-IESG last call review.
o Indicate that an ICMP Unreachable message should be sent when a
packet matches a drop-based negative map-cache entry.
o Indicate how a map-cache set of overlapping EID-prefixes must
maintain integrity when the map-cache maximum cap is reached.
o Add Joel's description for the definition of an EID, that the bit
string value can be an RLOC for another device in abstract but the
architecture allows it to be an EID of one device and the same
value as an RLOC for another device.
o In the "Tunnel Encapsulation Details" section, indicate that 4
combinations of encapsulation are supported.
o Add what ETR should do for a Data-Probe when received for a
destination EID outside of its EID-prefix range. This was added
in the Data Probe definition section.
o Added text indicating that more-specific EID-prefixes must not be
removed when less-specific entries stay in the map-cache. This is
to preserve the integrity of the EID-prefix set.
o Add clarifying text in the Security Considerations section about
how an ETR must not decapsulate and forward a packet that is not
for its configured EID-prefix range.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-13.txt
o Posted June 2011 to complete working group last call.
o Tracker item 87. Put Yakov suggested wording in the EID-prefix
definition section to reference [INTERWORK] and [LISP-DEPLOY]
about discussion on transition and access mechanisms.
o Change "ITRs" to "ETRs" in the Locator Status Bit definition
section and data packet description section per Damien's comment.
o Remove the normative reference to [LISP-SEC] when describing the
S-bit in the ECM and Map-Reply headers.
o Tracker item 54. Added text from John Scudder in the "Packets
Egressing a LISP Site" section.
o Add sentence to the "Reencapsulating Tunnel" definition about how
reencapsulation loops can occur when not coordinating among
multiple mapping database systems.
o Remove "In theory" from a sentence in the Security Considerations
section.
o Remove Security Area Statement title and reword section with
Eliot's provided text. The text was agreed upon by LISP-WG chairs
and Security ADs.
o Remove word "potential" from the over-claiming paragraph of the
Security Considerations section per Stephen's request.
o Wordsmithing and other editorial comments from Alia.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-12.txt
o Posted April 2011.
o Tracker item 87. Provided rewording how an EID-prefix can be
reused in the definition section of "EID-prefix".
o Tracker item 95. Change "eliminate" to "defer" in section 4.1.
o Tracker item 110. Added that the Mapping Protocol Data field in
the Map-Reply message is only used when needed by the particular
Mapping Database System.
o Tracker item 111. Indicate that if an LSB that is associated with
an anycast address, that there is at least one RLOC that is up.
o Tracker item 108. Make clear the R-bit does not define RLOC path
reachability.
o Tracker item 107. Indicate that weights are relative to each
other versus requiring an addition of up to 100%.
o Tracker item 46. Add a sentence how LISP products should be sized
for the appropriate demand so cache thrashing is avoided.
o Change some references of RFC 5226 to [AFI] per Luigi.
o Per Luigi, make reference to "EID-AFI" consistent to "EID-prefix-
AFI".
o Tracker item 66. Indicate that appending locators to a locator-
set is done when the added locators are lexicographically greater
than the previous ones in the set.
o Tracker item 87. Once again reword the definition of the EID-
prefix to reflect recent comments.
o Tracker item 70. Added text to security section on what the
implications could be if an ITR does not obey priority and weights
from a Map-Reply message.
o Tracker item 54. Added text to the new section titled "Packets
Egressing a LISP Site" to describe the implications when two or
more ITRs exist at a site where only one ITR is used for egress
traffic and when there is a shift of traffic to the others, how
the map-cache will need to be populated in those new egress ITRs.
o Tracker item 33. Make more clear in the Routing Locator Selection
section what an ITR should do when it sees an R-bit of 0 in a
locator-record of a Map-Reply.
o Tracker item 33. Add paragraph to the EID Reachability section
indicating that site partitioning is under investigation.
o Tracker item 58. Added last paragraph of Security Considerations
section about how to protect inner header EID address spoofing
attacks.
o Add suggested Sam text to indicate that all security concerns need
not be addressed for moving document to Experimental RFC status.
Put this in a subsection of the Security Considerations section.
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-11.txt
o Posted March 30, 2011.
o Change IANA URL. The URL we had pointed to a general protocol
numbers page.
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.
o Generalize text for the definition of Reencapsuatling tunnels.
o Add paragraph suggested by Joel to explain how implementation
experimentation will be used to determine the proper cache
management techniques.
o Add Yakov provided text for the definition of "EID-to-RLOC
"Database".
o Add reference in Section 8, Deployment Scenarios, to the
draft-jakab-lisp-deploy-02.txt draft.
o Clarify sentence about no hardware changes needed to support LISP
encapsulation.
o Add paragraph about what is the procedure when a locator is
inserted in the middle of a locator-set.
o Add a definition for Locator Status Bits so we can emphasize they
are used as a hint for router up/down status and not path
reachability.
o Change "BGP RIB" to "RIB" per Clarence's comment.
o Fixed complaints by IDnits.
o Add subsection to Security Considerations section indicating how
EID-prefix overclaiming in Map-Replies is for further study and
add a reference to LISP-SEC.
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-10.txt
o Posted March 2011.
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.
o Add Map-Notify message which is used to acknowledge a Map-Register
message sent to a Map-Server.
o Add M-bit to the Map-Register message so an ETR that wants an
acknowledgment for the Map-Register can request one.
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
[LISP-SEC] for expansive details.
o Add Network Management Considerations section and point to the MIB
and LIG drafts.
o Remove the word "simple" per Yakov's comments.
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-09.txt
o Posted October 2010.
o Add to IANA Consideration section about the use of LCAF Type
values that accepted and maintained by the IANA registry and not
the LCAF specification.
o Indicate that implementations should be able to receive LISP
control messages when either UDP port is 4342, so they can be
robust in the face of intervening NAT boxes.
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
entry for the SMR source's EID-prefix.
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-08.txt
o Posted August 2010.
o In section 6.1.6, remove statement about setting TTL to 0 in Map-
Register messages.
o Clarify language in section 6.1.5 about Map-Replying to Data-
Probes or Map-Requests.
o Indicate that outer TTL should only be copied to inner TTL when it
is less than inner TTL.
o Indicate a source-EID for RLOC-probes are encoded with an AFI
value of 0.
o Indicate that SMRs can have a global or per SMR destination rate-
limiter.
o Add clarifications to the SMR procedures.
o Add definitions for "client-side" and 'server-side" terms used in
this specification.
o Clear up language in section 6.4, last paragraph.
o Change ACT of value 0 to "no-action". This is so we can RLOC-
probe a PETR and have it return a Map-Reply with a locator-set of
size 0. The way it is spec'ed the map-cache entry has action
"dropped". Drop-action is set to 3.
o Add statement about normalizing locator weights.
o Clarify R-bit definition in the Map-Reply locator record.
o Add section on EID Reachability within a LISP site.
o Clarify another disadvantage of using anycast locators.
o Reworded Abstract.
o Change section 2.0 Introduction to remove obsolete information
such as the LISP variant definitions.
o Change section 5 title from "Tunneling Details" to "LISP
Encapsulation Details".
o Changes to section 5 to include results of network deployment
experience with MTU. Recommend that implementations use either
the stateful or stateless handling.
o Make clarification wordsmithing to Section 7 and 8.
o Identify that if there is one locator in the locator-set of a map-
cache entry, that an SMR from that locator should be responded to
by sending the the SMR-invoked Map-Request to the database mapping
system rather than to the RLOC itself (which may be unreachable).
o When describing Unicast and Multicast Weights indicate the the
values are relative weights rather than percentages. So it
doesn't imply the sum of all locator weights in the locator-set
need to be 100.
o Do some wordsmithing on copying TTL and TOS fields.
o Numerous wordsmithing changes from Dave Meyer. He fine toothed
combed the spec.
o Removed Section 14 "Prototype Plans and Status". We felt this
type of section is no longer appropriate for a protocol
specification.
o Add clarification text for the IRC description per Damien's
commentary.
o Remove text on copying nonce from SMR to SMR-invoked Map- Request
per Vina's comment about a possible DoS vector.
o Clarify (S/2 + H) in the stateless MTU section.
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
addresses are local addresses of the Map-Requester.
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-07.txt
o Posted April 2010.
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
8-bits (from 32-bits).
o Added V-bit to the data header so the 24-bit nonce field can also
be used for source and destination version numbers.
o Added Map-Version 12-bit value to the EID-record to be used in all
of Map-Request, Map-Reply, and Map-Register messages.
o Added multiple ITR-RLOC fields to the Map-Request packet so an ETR
can decide what address to select for the destination of a Map-
Reply.
o Added L-bit (Local RLOC bit) and p-bit (Probe-Reply RLOC bit) to
the Locator-Set record of an EID-record for a Map-Reply message.
The L-bit indicates which RLOCs in the locator-set are local to
the sender of the message. The P-bit indicates which RLOC is the
source of a RLOC-probe Reply (Map-Reply) message.
o Add reference to the LISP Canonical Address Format [LCAF] draft.
o Made editorial and clarification changes based on comments from
Dhirendra Trivedi.
o Added wordsmithing comments from Joel Halpern on DF=1 setting.
o Add John Zwiebel clarification to Echo Nonce Algorithm section
6.3.1.
o Add John Zwiebel comment about expanding on proxy-map-reply bit
for Map-Register messages.
o Add NAT section per Ron Bonica comments.
o Fix IDnits issues per Ron Bonica.
o Added section on Virtualization and Segmentation to explain the
use if the Instance ID field in the data header.
o There are too many P-bits, keep their scope to the packet format
description and refer to them by name every where else in the
spec.
o Scanned all occurrences of "should", "should not", "must" and
"must not" and uppercased them.
o John Zwiebel offered text for section 4.1 to modernize the
example. Thanks Z!
o Make it more clear in the definition of "EID-to-RLOC Database"
that all ETRs need to have the same database mapping. This
reflects a comment from John Scudder.
o Add a definition "Route-returnability" to the Definition of Terms
section.
o In section 9.2, add text to describe what the signature of
traceroute packets can look like.
o Removed references to Data Probe for introductory example. Data-
probes are still part of the LISP design but not encouraged.
o Added the definition for "LISP site" to the Definition of Terms"
section.
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-06.txt
Editorial based changes:
o Posted December 2009.
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
computed UDP checksum.
o Add definitions for PITR and PETR.
o Indicate an AFI value of 0 is an unspecified address.
o Indicate that the TTL field of a Map-Register is not used and set
to 0 by the sender. This change makes this spec consistent with
[LISP-MS].
o Change "... yield a packet size of L octets" to "... yield a
packet size greater than L octets".
o Clarify section 6.1.5 on what addresses and ports are used in Map-
Reply messages.
o Clarify that LSBs that go beyond the number of locators do not to
be SMRed when the locator addresses are greater lexicographically
than the locator in the existing locator-set.
o Add Gregg, Srini, and Amit to acknowledgment section.
o Clarify in the definition of a LISP header what is following the
UDP header.
o Clarify "verifying Map-Request" text in section 6.1.3.
o Add Xu Xiaohu to the acknowledgment section for introducing the
problem of overlapping EID-prefixes among multiple sites in an RRG
email message.
Design based changes:
o Use stronger language to have the outer IPv4 header set DF=1 so we
can avoid fragment reassembly in an ETR or PETR. This will also
make IPv4 and IPv6 encapsulation have consistent behavior.
o Map-Requests should not be sent in ECM with the Probe bit is set.
These type of Map-Requests are used as RLOC-probes and are sent
directly to locator addresses in the underlying network.
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
configure.
o Add text in a new subsection of section 6.1.5 about dealing with
Map-Replies with coarse EID-prefixes.
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-05.txt
o Posted September 2009.
o Added this Document Change Log appendix.
o Added section indicating that encapsulated Map-Requests must use
destination UDP port 4342.
o Don't use AH in Map-Registers. Put key-id, auth-length, and auth-
data in Map-Register payload.
o Added Jari to acknowledgment section.
o State the source-EID is set to 0 when using Map-Requests to
refresh or RLOC-probe.
o Make more clear what source-RLOC should be for a Map-Request.
o The LISP-CONS authors thought that the Type definitions for CONS
should be removed from this specification.
o Removed nonce from Map-Register message, it wasn't used so no need
for it.
o Clarify what to do for unspecified Action bits for negative Map-
Replies. Since No Action is a drop, make value 0 Drop.
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt
o Posted September 2009.
o How do deal with record count greater than 1 for a Map-Request.
Damien and Joel comment. Joel suggests: 1) Specify that senders
compliant with the current document will always set the count to
1, and note that the count is included for future extensibility.
2) Specify what a receiver compliant with the draft should do if
it receives a request with a count greater than 1. Presumably, it
should send some error back?
o Add Fred Templin in acknowledgment section.
o Add Margaret and Sam to the acknowledgment section for their great
comments.
o Say more about LAGs in the UDP section per Sam Hartman's comment.
o Sam wants to use MAY instead of SHOULD for ignoring checksums on
ETR. From the mailing list: "You'd need to word it as an ITR MAY
send a zero checksum, an ETR MUST accept a 0 checksum and MAY
ignore the checksum completely. And of course we'd need to
confirm that can actually be implemented. In particular, hardware
that verifies UDP checksums on receive needs to be checked to make
sure it permits 0 checksums."
o Margaret wants a reference to
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00.txt.
o Fix description in Map-Request section. Where we describe Map-
Reply Record, change "R-bit" to "M-bit".
o Add the mobility bit to Map-Replies. So PITRs don't probe so
often for MNs but often enough to get mapping updates.
o Indicate SHA1 can be used as well for Map-Registers.
o More Fred comments on MTU handling.
o Isidor comment about spec'ing better periodic Map-Registers. Will
be fixed in draft-ietf-lisp-ms-02.txt.
o Margaret's comment on gleaning: "The current specification does
not make it clear how long gleaned map entries should be retained
in the cache, nor does it make it clear how/ when they will be
validated. The LISP spec should, at the very least, include a
(short) default lifetime for gleaned entries, require that they be
validated within a short period of time, and state that a new
gleaned entry should never overwrite an entry that was obtained
from the mapping system. The security implications of storing