draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16.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: December 2, 2020 Broadcom		Expires: December 5, 2020 Broadcom
	P. Agarwal		P. Agarwal
	Innovium		Innovium
	D. Lewis		D. Lewis
	M. Smith		M. Smith
	Cisco		Cisco
	May 31, 2020		June 3, 2020
	LISP Generic Protocol Extension		LISP Generic Protocol Extension
	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-15		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation		This document describes extensions 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
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://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 December 2, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://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 2, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 27 ¶
	4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8		4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8
	4.4. DSCP, ECN and TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.4. DSCP, ECN and TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.1. Detection of ETR Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.1. Detection of ETR Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	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 5, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 35 ¶
	0x03 : Ethernet		0x03 : Ethernet
	0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]		0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]
	0x05 to 0x7D Unassigned		0x05 to 0x7D Unassigned
	0x7E to 0x7F: Experimentation and testing		0x7E to 0x7F: Experimentation and testing
	0x80 to 0xFD: Unassigned (shim headers)		0x80 to 0xFD: Unassigned (shim headers)
	0xFE to 0xFF: Experimentation and testing		0xFE to 0xFF: Experimentation and testing (shim headers)
	The values are tracked in the IANA LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry		The values are tracked in the IANA LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry
	as described in Section 6.1.		as described in Section 6.1.
	Next protocol values 0x7E, 0x7F and 0xFE, 0xFF are assigned for		Next protocol values 0x7E, 0x7F and 0xFE, 0xFF are assigned for
	experimentation and testing as per [RFC3692].		experimentation and testing as per [RFC3692].
	Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFD are assigned to protocols		Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFD are assigned to protocols
	encoded as generic "shim" headers. All shim protocols MUST use the		encoded as generic "shim" headers. All shim protocols MUST use the
	header structure in Figure 4, which includes a Next Protocol field.		header structure in Figure 4, which includes a Next Protocol field.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 16 ¶
	6.1. 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 under the		defined in this document. New values are assigned under the
	Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are		Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are
	being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards		being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards
	track protocols.		track protocols.
	+---------------+-----------------------------+---------------+		+--------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+
	| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |		| Next | Description | Reference |
	+---------------+-----------------------------+---------------+		| Protocol | | |
	| 0x0 | Reserved | This Document |		+--------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+
	| 0x1 | IPv4 | This Document |		| 0x0 | Reserved | This |
	| 0x2 | IPv6 | This Document |		| | | Document |
	| 0x3 | Ethernet | This Document |		| 0x1 | IPv4 | This |
	| 0x4 | NSH | This Document |		| | | Document |
	| 0x05..0x7D | Unassigned | |		| 0x2 | IPv6 | This |
	| 0x7E..0x7F | Experimentation and testing | This Document |		| | | Document |
	| 0x80..0xFD | Unassigned (shim headers) | |		| 0x3 | Ethernet | This |
	| 0x8E..0x8F | Experimentation and testing | This Document |		| | | Document |
	+---------------+-----------------------------+---------------+		| 0x4 | NSH | This |
			| | | Document |
			| 0x05..0x7D | Unassigned | |
			| 0x7E..0x7F | Experimentation and testing | This |
			| | | Document |
			| 0x80..0xFD | Unassigned (shim headers) | |
			| 0x8E..0x8F | Experimentation and testing (shim | This |
			| | headers) | Document |
			+--------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+
	7. Security Considerations		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].
	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 P-Bit and the		subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the P-Bit and the
	packet itself can remove part of the payload or claim to encapsulate		packet itself can remove part of the payload or claim to encapsulate
	any protocol payload type. Typical integrity protection mechanisms		any protocol payload type. Typical integrity protection mechanisms
	skipping to change at page 12, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 29 ¶
	o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.		o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.
	o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc.		o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc.
	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 Jennifer Lemon, Broadcom
	o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium		o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[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
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	22 lines changed or deleted		30 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/