draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07.txt
	Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed.		Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Internet-Draft Cisco
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon		Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon
	Expires: March 24, 2019 Broadcom		Expires: April 20, 2020 Broadcom
	P. Agarwal		P. Agarwal
	Innovium		Innovium
	D. Lewis		D. Lewis
	M. Smith		M. Smith
	Cisco		Cisco
	September 20, 2018		October 18, 2019
	LISP Generic Protocol Extension		LISP Generic Protocol Extension
	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation		This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation
	Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to		Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to
	support multi-protocol encapsulation.		support multi-protocol encapsulation.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2019 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4		3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 7
	3.1.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet		4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.1.2. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH		4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8
	4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR		5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 8		6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 12
	7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It		The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It
	specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets		specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets
	(henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer		(henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer
	UDP/IP transport.		UDP/IP transport.
	The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being		The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being
	encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only		encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only
	skipping to change at page 3, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 13 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
	the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all		the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
	the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.		the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.
	A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the		A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
	presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,		presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,
	when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing		when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
	and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,		and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,
	albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.		albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.
	LISP-GPE MAY also be used to extend the LISP Data-Plane header, that		Since all of the reserved bits of the LISP Data-Plane header have
	has allocated all by defining a Next Protocol "shim" header that		been allocated, LISP-GPE can also be used to extend the LISP Data-
	implements new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header.		Plane header by defining Next Protocol "shim" headers that implements
	As an example, the use of the Network Service Header (NSH) with LISP-		new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. For
	GPE, can be considered an extension to add support in the Data-Plane		example, the use of the Group-Based Policy (GBP) header
	for Network Service Chaining functionalities.		[I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] or of the In-situ Operations,
			Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) header
			[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] with LISP-GPE, can be considered
			an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for Group-Based Policy
			functionalities or IOAM metadata.
	1.1. Conventions		1.1. Conventions
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
	1.2. Definition of Terms		1.2. Definition of Terms
	skipping to change at page 4, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 34 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol |		|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |		| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header		Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header
	P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.		P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.
	If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to the		If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent
	definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].		to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
	The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next		The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next
	Protocol field.		Protocol field.
	Nonce/Map-Version: In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower		Nonce/Map-Version: In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower
	24 bits of the first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to		24 bits of the first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to
	support map- versioning. These are all optional capabilities that		support map- versioning. These are all optional capabilities that
	are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits		are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits
	respectively.		respectively.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 41 ¶
	each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping		each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping
	to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the		to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the
	mapping.		mapping.
	Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to		Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to
	carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the		carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the
	protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.		protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
	This document defines the following Next Protocol values:		This document defines the following Next Protocol values:
	0x1 : IPv4		0x01 : IPv4
	0x2 : IPv6		0x02 : IPv6
	0x3 : Ethernet		0x03 : Ethernet
	0x4 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]		0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]
			0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned
			0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers)
	The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in		The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in
	Section 5.1.		Section 6.1.
	3.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions		Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols
			encoded as generic "shim" headers. Shim protocols all use a common
			header structure, which includes a next header field using the same
			values as described above. When a shim header protocol is used with
			other data described by protocols identified by next protocol values
			from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before the further
			protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate what follows
			the shim protocol.
	To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will work		Implementations that are not aware of a given shim header MUST ignore
	well from a transport interaction perspective, the specification of a		the header and proceed to parse the next protocol. Shim protocols
	new encapsulated payload MUST contain an analysis of how LISP-GPE		MUST have the first 32 bits defined as:
	SHOULD deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP mapping, and Explicit
	Congestion Notification (ECN) bits whenever they apply to the new
	encapsulated payload.
	For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies		0 1 2 3
	how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP		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
	checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. Each		| Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol |
	new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	accompanied by a similar analysis.		| |
			~ Protocol Specific Fields ~
			| |
			+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Encapsulated payloads may have a priority field that may or may not		Figure 3: Shim Header
	be mapped to the DSCP field of the outer IP header (part of Type of
	Service in IPv4 or Traffic Class in IPv6). Such new encapsulated		Where:
	payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by an
	analysis similar to the one performed in Section 3.1.1 of this		Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol.
	document for Ethernet payloads.
			Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not
			including the first 4 octects.
			Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined
			in this message.
			Next Protocol Field: This next protocol field contains the protocol
			of the encapsulated payload. The protocol registry will be
			requested from IANA as per section 10.2.
			4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations
			4.1. Applicability Statement
			LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP
			usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of
			these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the
			nature of the encapsulated payload.
			[RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications,
			1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled
			environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of
			cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be
			managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general
			Internet this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel
			protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less
			restrictive than the requirements of general internet.
			LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered
			by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol. The
			common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating
			entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other
			large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and
			topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and
			Internet topology, routing, and addressing.
			LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by
			a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators
			that fits with the definition of controlled environments in
			[RFC8085].
			For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled
			environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP
			network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g.,
			via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant
			portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086].
			It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the
			guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to
			their LISP-GPE deployments
			4.2. Congestion Control Functionality
			LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality
			and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control.
			As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or
			within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE).
			An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion
			by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data
			traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity.
	Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification		Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification
	mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN		mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN
	field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP-		field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP-
	GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from		GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from
	[RFC6040].		[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040].
	The rest of this section specifies payload specific transport		4.3. UDP Checksum
	interactions considerations for the two new LISP-GPE encapsulated
	payloads specified in this document: Ethernet and NSH.
	3.1.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet		For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies
	Encapsulated Payloads		how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP
			checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is
			desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption.
	The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of		In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads.		payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different
	Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage		tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD
	guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to		be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum
	protect UDP, LISP and Ethernet headers against corruption.		provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in
			transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or
			cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical-
			layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see
			Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists,
			an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as
			offered by IPSec.
			An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum
			if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity
			mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the
			conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met.
			By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported
			over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP
			checksum if additional requirements in Section 4.3.1 are met.
			4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6
			When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6
			headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential
			data corruption. As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum
			when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to configure to
			operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed
			controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the
			following conditions are met:
			a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely
			(perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay
			network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected
			packet corruption
			b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through
			historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum)
			that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where
			the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption
			c. LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of
			misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer
			checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission)
			In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum
			MUST meet the following requirements:
			1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration
			for all LISP-GPE tunnels
			2. If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such
			xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in
			section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section
			5 of [RFC6936]
			3. The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and
			destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that
			is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other
			packets for which such check fails
			4. The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6
			source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP
			checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of
			the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not
			to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address,
			irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or
			multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED
			to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use
			zero UDP checksum as is feasible
			5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6
			with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet.
			Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the
			PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP
			network from networks carrying General Internet
			The above requirements do not change either the requirements
			specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements
			specified in [RFC6936].
			The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the
			destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of
			source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide
			some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6
			header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at
			least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section
			provides additional assurance.
			4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads
	When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner		When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
	802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be		802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY
	mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in		be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the 3-bit Type of Service
	the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'		field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic
	field.		Class' field.
	When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner		When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
	header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped		header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped
	to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.		to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.
	3.1.2. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH Encapsulated		5. Backward Compatibility
	Payloads
	The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to NSH Encapsulated Payloads.
	Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage
	guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to
	protect UDP, LISP, and NSH headers against corruption.
	When a LISP-GPE router performs an NSH encapsulation, DSCP and ECN
	values MAY be mapped as specified for the Next Protocol encapsulated
	by NSH (namely IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet).
	4. Backward Compatibility
	LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.		LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.
	The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane		The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane
	capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-		capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-
	Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in		Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in
	[RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR		[RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR
	(xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document.		(xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document.
	When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the		When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the
	P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in		P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in
	this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated		this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated
	that it supports this specification because such a router would		that it supports this specification because such a router would
	ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so		ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so
	would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing		would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing
	significant errors.		significant errors.
	A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets (that have the		A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets (that have the
	P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router.		P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router.
	4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities		5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities
	LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple		LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple
	Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply		Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply
	to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In		to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In
	this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-		this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-
	GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.		GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.
	The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as		The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as
	defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to		defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to
	represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation. The values are		represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation. The values are
	tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 5.2.		tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 6.2.
	This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the		This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the
	"Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:		"Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:
	g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI)		g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI)
	encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE		encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE
	(Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP		(Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP
	port 4341		port 4341
	5. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry		6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry
	IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".		IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
	These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are		These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are
	defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards		defined in this document. New values are assigned under the
	Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do		Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are
	not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.		being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards
			track protocols.
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+
	| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |		| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+
	| 0 | Reserved | This Document |		| 0x00 | Reserved | This Document |
	| 1 | IPv4 | This Document |		| 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document |
	| 2 | IPv6 | This Document |		| 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document |
	| 3 | Ethernet | This Document |		| 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document |
	| 4 | NSH | This Document |		| 0x04 | NSH | This Document |
	| 5..255 | Unassigned | |		| 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | |
			| 0x80 | GBP | This Document |
			| 0x81 | iOAM | This Document |
			| 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | |
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+
	5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry		6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry
	IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes		IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes
	Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an		Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an
	ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060]. The		ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060]. The
	bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF type.		bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF type.
	Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation. New		Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation. New
	values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126].		values are assigned under the Specification Required policy
			[RFC8126].
	Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bit 24 (g-bit) to		Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bits 24-31. Bit 24
	LISP-GPE. Bits 25-31 are assigned in [RFC8060]).		(bit 'g') is assigned to LISP-GPE, bits 25-31 assignment is
			conformant with [RFC8060].
	+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+		+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	| Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference |		| Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference |
	| Position | Name | | |		| Position | Name | | |
	+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+		+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	| 0-23 | | Unassigned | |		| 0-23 | | Unassigned | |
	| 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This |		| 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This |
	| | | (LISP-GPE) | Document |		| | | (LISP-GPE) | Document |
	| 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | [RFC8060] |		| 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | This |
	| 26 | G | Generic Network Virtualization | [RFC8060] |		| | | | Document |
	| | | Encapsulation (GENEVE) | |		| 26 | G | Generic Network Virtualization | This |
	| 27 | N | Network Virtualization - Generic | [RFC8060] |		| | | Encapsulation (GENEVE) | Document |
	| | | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE) | |		| 27 | N | Network Virtualization - Generic | This |
	| 28 | v | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension | [RFC8060] |		| | | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE) | Document |
	| | | (VXLAN-GPE) | |		| 28 | v | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension | This |
	| 29 | V | Virtual eXtensible Local Area | [RFC8060] |		| | | (VXLAN-GPE) | Document |
	| | | Network (VXLAN) | |		| 29 | V | Virtual eXtensible Local Area | This |
	| 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | [RFC8060] |		| | | Network (VXLAN) | Document |
	| 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | [RFC8060] |		| 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | This |
	| | | (LISP) | |		| | | | Document |
			| 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | This |
			| | | (LISP) | Document |
	+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+		+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	6. Security Considerations		Editorial Note (The following paragraph to be removed by the RFC
			Editor before publication)
			The "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" was "hardcoded" in
			RFC8060, assigning values to bits 25-31. This draft allocates the
			"Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" registry assigning a
			value to bit 24 for the LISP-GPE encapsualtion, assigning bits 25-31
			values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future
			allocation of values 0-23.
			7. Security Considerations
	LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security		LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
	considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].		considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].
	The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]		The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
	relies on the nonce to detect reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP-		relies on the nonce to detect reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP-
	GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce, compared with the 24-bit nonce used in		GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce, compared with the 24-bit nonce used in
	LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly		LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly
	guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable		guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable
	RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing		RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing
	mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of attack.		mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of attack.
			The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] about use of
			Echo Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits apply to LISP-GPE
			as well.
	LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is		LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is
	subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the		subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the
	packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity		packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity
	protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination		protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination
	with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from		with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from
	on-path attackers.		on-path attackers.
	With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and		With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and
	traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload		traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
	encapsulated.		encapsulated.
	7. Acknowledgements and Contributors		8. Acknowledgements and Contributors
	A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and		A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
	detailed review.		detailed review.
	This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;		This Working Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;
	the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their		the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their
	respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of		respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of
	this document would like to thank and recognize them and their		this document would like to thank and recognize them and their
	contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable		contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable
	concepts and content for this document's creation.		concepts and content for this document's creation.
	o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc.		o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc.
	o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.		o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 13 ¶
	o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc.		o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc.
	o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc.		o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc.
	o Larry Kreeger		o Larry Kreeger
	o John Lemon, Broadcom		o John Lemon, Broadcom
	o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium		o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium
	8. References		9. References
	8.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]		[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
	Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID		Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-		Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
	lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018.		lisp-6834bis-04 (work in progress), August 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
	Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.		Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
	Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol		Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
	(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 (work in progress),		(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 (work in progress),
	September 2018.		June 2019.
	[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]		[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
	IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area		IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
	networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,		networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
	DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,		DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,
	<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/		<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
	opac?punumber=6991460>.		opac?punumber=6991460>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
	editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	8.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
			[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]
			Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
			Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A.,
			Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE
			Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm-
			ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019.
			[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]
			Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler,
			"Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to
			Protocols that Encapsulate IP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-
			encap-guidelines-13 (work in progress), May 2019.
			[I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp]
			Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group
			Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon-
			vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019.
			[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
			(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
			December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
	[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion		[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
	Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November		Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
	2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.		2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
			[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
			UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, <https://www.rfc-
			editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
			[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
			for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
			RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
	[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,		[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
	L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual		L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
	eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for		eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
	Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3		Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
	Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,		Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
	[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID		[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,		Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-		DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-
	editor.org/info/rfc7835>.		editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
	[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical		[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
	Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,		Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
	February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.		February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
	[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage		[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
	Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,		Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
	March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.		March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
			[RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
			in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,
			March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,		[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
	skipping to change at page 12, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 32 ¶
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Fabio Maino (editor)		Fabio Maino (editor)
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		USA
	Email: fmaino@cisco.com		Email: fmaino@cisco.com
	John Lemon		Jennifer Lemon
	Broadcom		Broadcom
	270 Innovation Drive		270 Innovation Drive
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		USA
	Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com		Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com
	Puneet Agarwal		Puneet Agarwal
	Innovium		Innovium
	USA		USA
	Email: puneet@acm.org		Email: puneet@acm.org
	Darrel Lewis		Darrel Lewis
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
End of changes. 46 change blocks.
	123 lines changed or deleted		328 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/