--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16.txt 2018-09-11 10:13:24.143355599 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.txt 2018-09-11 10:13:24.235357817 -0700 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft V. Fuller Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis -Expires: February 28, 2019 Cisco Systems +Expires: March 15, 2019 Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - August 27, 2018 + September 11, 2018 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 Abstract This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache. @@ -35,21 +35,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -61,65 +61,66 @@ Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 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 - 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 21 - 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28 - 13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 + 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 + 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 + 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 29 + 13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 + 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 38 - B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 38 - B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38 - B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38 - B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38 - B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38 - B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 39 - B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39 - B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39 - B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40 - B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 41 - B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 + Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 43 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1. Introduction This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network @@ -569,22 +570,30 @@ Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner 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 is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined 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 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 | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Source Routing Locator | @@ -823,21 +831,21 @@ 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 perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be 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 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel @@ -939,25 +947,25 @@ MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR. - This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates - a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the - 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6 - packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet - when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/ + This behavior MAY be performed by the ITR only when the source host + originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. + When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an + IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the + 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 is (L - H). When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an 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 to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. @@ -1272,21 +1280,22 @@ Locator-Set. 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 allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are 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 - 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 balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP encapsulation. 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings @@ -1489,34 +1498,39 @@ found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. 18. Changes since RFC 6830 For implementation considerations, the following changes have been made to this document since RFC 6830 was published: 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 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 - 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 still documented as reserved. o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method 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 This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as @@ -1524,47 +1538,61 @@ lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets 20. References 20.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 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] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 (work in progress), August 2018. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . + [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, . [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, . + [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, + . + + [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC + 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, + May 2017, . + [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, . 20.2. Informative References [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, . @@ -1589,25 +1617,20 @@ [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, . [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, . - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - . - [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, . [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February 2001, . [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced @@ -1681,34 +1704,29 @@ [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, February 2017, . [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, . + [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage + Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, + March 2017, . + [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, May 2017, . - [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, - . - - [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC - 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, - May 2017, . - [RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378, DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018, . Appendix A. Acknowledgments An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value to the LISP authors. @@ -1745,120 +1763,131 @@ 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 documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. Appendix B. Document Change Log [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 Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP 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 Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed Standard. o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are 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 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 Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new OAM document. 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 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 Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM document. -B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 +B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 o Posted March 2018. o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and weights). o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing 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 Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during encapsulation and decapsulation. o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section from various commenters. o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. o More editorial changes. 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 Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi Iannone. 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 Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] addresses. -B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 +B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 o Posted October 2017. o Put RTR definition before it is used. 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 hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". @@ -1867,76 +1896,76 @@ o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. 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 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 Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums 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 Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA 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 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 Include references to new RFCs published. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. 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 Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. Authors' Addresses - Dino Farinacci Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: farinacci@gmail.com + Vince Fuller Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com Dave Meyer Cisco Systems