draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.txt
	Network Working Group D. Farinacci		Network Working Group D. Farinacci
	Internet-Draft V. Fuller		Internet-Draft V. Fuller
	Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer		Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer
	Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis		Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis
	Expires: February 28, 2019 Cisco Systems		Expires: March 15, 2019 Cisco Systems
	A. Cabellos (Ed.)		A. Cabellos (Ed.)
	UPC/BarcelonaTech		UPC/BarcelonaTech
	August 27, 2018		September 11, 2018
	The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)		The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
	draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID		This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point		Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
	Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators		Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
	(RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP		(RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP
	effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create		effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
	overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets		overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
	according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.		according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶
	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 February 28, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20		7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
	7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21		7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 21		8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22
	9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28		13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29
	13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
	16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
	Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
	B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 38		B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 38		B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38		B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38		B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38		B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38		B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41
	B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 39		B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41
	B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39		B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41
	B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39		B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 41
	B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 40		B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42
	B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 40		B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42
	B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40		B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42
	B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40		B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 42
	B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 41		B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43
	B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 41		B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43
	B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 41		B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43
	B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41		B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41		B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 43
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol		This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
	(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the		(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
	fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network		fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
	attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result		attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
	LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are		LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
	used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and		used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
	routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network		routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
	skipping to change at page 13, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 10 ¶
	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 outer 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 outer 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. Additional types of EIDs are defined		combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined
	in [RFC8060].		in [RFC8060].
	5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format		As LISP uses UDP encapsulation to carry traffic between xTRs across
			the Internet, implementors should be aware of the provisions of
			[RFC8085], especially those given in section 3.1.11 on congestion
			control for UDP tunneling.
			Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines
			in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect UDP and
			LISP headers against corruption.
			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 | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |		/ |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
	/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |		| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
	| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |		OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
	| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| | Source Routing Locator |		| | Source Routing Locator |
	skipping to change at page 18, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 19, line 21 ¶
	Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is		Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
	less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to		less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to
	perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header		perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header
	to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This		to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
	check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a		check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
	packet 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 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field		o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field
	(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be		(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
	copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in		copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
	the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.		the case of IPv6) to the inner-header.
	o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7		o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
	of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in		of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
	order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If		order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If
	the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the		the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
	value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then		value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
	ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the		ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the
	stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used		stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used
	to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve		to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
	CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel		CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
	skipping to change at page 20, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 21, line 43 ¶
	MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.		MTU 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 and		individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and
	then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the		then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
	destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the		destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the
	destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by		destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
	the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the		the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
	encapsulated packet was 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 MAY be performed by the ITR only when the source host
	a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the		originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0.
	'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6		When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an
	packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet		IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the
	when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/		packet when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/
	Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S		Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S
	is (L - H).		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.
	skipping to change at page 27, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 28, line 42 ¶
	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 that 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 that 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. The source port
			SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same flow.
	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.
	13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings		13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
	skipping to change at page 32, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 33, line 22 ¶
	found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].		found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
	18. Changes since RFC 6830		18. Changes since RFC 6830
	For implementation considerations, the following changes have been		For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
	made to this document since RFC 6830 was published:		made to this document since RFC 6830 was published:
	o It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers		o It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers
	be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more		be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more
	than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However,		than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However,
	this document recommends a maximum of 2 LISP headers.		it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be
			prepended to a packet.
	o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated		o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
	for [RFC8060]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named		for [RFC8061]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named
	the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is		the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is
	still documented as reserved.		still documented as reserved.
	o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made		o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made
	optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote		optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote
	ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any		ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any
	interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache		interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache
	population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method		population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
	for map-cache population.		for map-cache population.
			o The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length
			are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures
			to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
	19. IANA Considerations		19. 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 this		Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
	Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].		Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
	19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers		19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
	The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP		The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP
	Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as		Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as
	skipping to change at page 33, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 34, line 14 ¶
	lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets		lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
	20. References		20. References
	20.1. Normative References		20.1. 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-00 (work in progress), July 2018.		lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
	Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,		Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
	"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",		"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
	draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 (work in progress), August		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 (work in progress), August
	2018.		2018.
	[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,		[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,		DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
	[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,		[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,		DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
			[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,		[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
	"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS		"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
	Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,		Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
	[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition		[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
	of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",		of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
	RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,		RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
			[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
			Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
			RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
			[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6		[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
	(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,		(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
	20.2. Informative References		20.2. Informative References
	[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,		[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
	skipping to change at page 34, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 35, line 47 ¶
	[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",		[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
	STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,		STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
	[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,		[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
	and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",		and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
	BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,		BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[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,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
	[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February		via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
	2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.		2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
	[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced		[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
	skipping to change at page 36, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 37, line 42 ¶
	[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>.
	[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol		[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
	(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,		(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
			[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
			Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
			March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
	[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.		[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
	Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated		Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
	Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,		Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID		[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,		Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
	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.
	skipping to change at page 38, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 40, line 5 ¶
	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 that the set of LISP		Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
	documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his		documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
	meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group		meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
	last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.		last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.
	Appendix B. Document Change Log		Appendix B. Document Change Log
	[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]		[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
	B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16		B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
			o Posted September 2018.
			o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
			has been shortened in length.
			o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control.
			o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews.
			B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
	o Posted late August 2018.		o Posted late August 2018.
	o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP		o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
	for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.		for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.
	B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15		B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
	o Posted August 2018.		o Posted August 2018.
	o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed		o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
	Standard.		Standard.
	o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are		o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are
	informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.		informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
	B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14		B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
	o Posted July 2018 IETF week.		o Posted July 2018 IETF week.
	o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.		o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.
	B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13		B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
	o Posted March IETF Week 2018.		o Posted March IETF Week 2018.
	o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.		o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
	o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new		o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
	OAM document.		OAM document.
	o Some references changed from normative to informative		o Some references changed from normative to informative
	B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12		B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
	o Posted July 2018.		o Posted July 2018.
	o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.		o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
	B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11		B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
	o Posted March 2018.		o Posted March 2018.
	o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and		o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and
	Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM		Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM
	document.		document.
	B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10		B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
	o Posted March 2018.		o Posted March 2018.
	o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-		o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-
	Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and		Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and
	weights).		weights).
	o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2		o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2
	(ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port		(ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port
	Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC		Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC
	probing		probing
	o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.		o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
	B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09		B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
	o Posted January 2018.		o Posted January 2018.
	o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during		o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
	encapsulation and decapsulation.		encapsulation and decapsulation.
	o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section		o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section
	from various commenters.		from various commenters.
	o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.		o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
	o More editorial changes.		o More editorial changes.
	o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.		o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
	B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08		B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
	o Posted January 2018.		o Posted January 2018.
	o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.		o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
	o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.		o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
	o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi		o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
	Iannone.		Iannone.
	o Ran IDNITs on the document.		o Ran IDNITs on the document.
	B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07		B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
	o Posted November 2017.		o Posted November 2017.
	o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]		o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
	addresses.		addresses.
	B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06		B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
	o Posted October 2017.		o Posted October 2017.
	o Put RTR definition before it is used.		o Put RTR definition before it is used.
	o Rename references that are now working group drafts.		o Rename references that are now working group drafts.
	o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other		o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other
	hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".		hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
	skipping to change at page 40, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 42, line 48 ¶
	o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.		o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
	o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.		o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
	o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.		o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
	o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.		o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
	o Clarify when private addreses can be used.		o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
	B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05		B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
	o Posted August 2017.		o Posted August 2017.
	o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.		o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
	B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04		B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
	o Posted July 2017.		o Posted July 2017.
	o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.		o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
	o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums		o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
	over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.		over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
	B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03		B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
	o Posted May 2017.		o Posted May 2017.
	o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA		o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
	Considerations section to RFC6833bis.		Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
	B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02		B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
	o Posted April 2017.		o Posted April 2017.
	o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.		o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
	B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01		B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
	o Posted March 2017.		o Posted March 2017.
	o Include references to new RFCs published.		o Include references to new RFCs published.
	o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.		o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
	o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.		o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
	o Remove references to "experimental".		o Remove references to "experimental".
	B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00		B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
	o Posted December 2016.		o Posted December 2016.
	o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp		o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
	-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.		-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Dino Farinacci		Dino Farinacci
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Tasman Drive		Tasman Drive
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		USA
	EMail: farinacci@gmail.com		EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
	Vince Fuller		Vince Fuller
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	Tasman Drive		Tasman Drive
	San Jose, CA 95134		San Jose, CA 95134
	USA		USA
	EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com		EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
	Dave Meyer		Dave Meyer
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
End of changes. 40 change blocks.
	90 lines changed or deleted		120 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/