Diff: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-08.txt - draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-09.txt

	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-08.txt	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-09.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: April 26, 2020 Broadcom	Expires: April 27, 2020 Broadcom
	P. Agarwal	P. Agarwal
	Innovium	Innovium
	D. Lewis	D. Lewis
	M. Smith	M. Smith
	Cisco	Cisco

	October 24, 2019	October 25, 2019

	LISP Generic Protocol Extension	LISP Generic Protocol Extension

	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-08	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-09

	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 April 26, 2020.	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2020.

	Copyright Notice	Copyright Notice

	Copyright (c) 2019 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

	skipping to change at page 12, line 52 ¶	skipping to change at page 12, line 52 ¶

	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 mitigates this form of attack.	mechanisms such as uRPF partially mitigates this form of attack.

	The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] that Echo	The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] that Echo
	Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD NOT be used	Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD NOT be used
	over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and	over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and
	closed deployments apply to LISP-GPE as well. These considerations	closed deployments apply to LISP-GPE as well. These considerations
	are even more important for LISP-GPE, considering the reduced size of	are even more important for LISP-GPE, considering the reduced size of
	the Nonce/Map-versioning field.	the Nonce/Map-versioning field.

	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

	skipping to change at page 14, line 36 ¶	skipping to change at page 14, line 36 ¶

	[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>.

	[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>.


	[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
	Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
	February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.

	9.2. Informative References	9.2. Informative References

	[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]	[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]
	Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,	Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
	Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A.,	Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A.,
	Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE	Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE
	Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm-	Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm-
	ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019.	ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019.

	[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]	[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]

	skipping to change at page 15, line 42 ¶	skipping to change at page 15, line 36 ¶
	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
		Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/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-	[RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
	in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,	in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,
	March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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,

End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	9 lines changed or deleted	9 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/