--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.txt 2018-09-17 11:13:17.305566369 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18.txt 2018-09-17 11:13:17.413568971 -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: March 15, 2019 Cisco Systems +Expires: March 21, 2019 Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - September 11, 2018 + September 17, 2018 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 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 March 15, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 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 @@ -75,51 +75,52 @@ 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 + 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 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 + 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 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 + B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 40 + B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 41 + B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 42 + B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 43 + B.19. 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 @@ -835,45 +836,48 @@ 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) 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 + order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040]. 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 and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between - the tunnel endpoints. + the tunnel endpoints. Implementations exist that copy the 'ECN' + field from the outer header to the inner header even though + [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is RECOMMENDED + that implementations change to support the behavior in [RFC6040]. Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic - Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment - in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. An + Class' field [RFC6040]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment + in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC6040]. An ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/ PETR 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 and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the @@ -975,31 +979,33 @@ An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]: 1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR. 2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an - ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message to the ITR. The ITR will parse - the ICMPv6 message to determine which Locator is affected by the - effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value - in the Map-Cache entry. + ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message or an ICMPv4 Unreachable/ + Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The ITR will + parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is affected by + the effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU + value in the Map-Cache entry. 3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination - EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv6 "Packet Too - Big" message back to the source. The packet size advertised by - the ITR in the ICMPv6 message is the effective MTU minus the LISP + EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv4 ICMP + Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" + message back to the source. The packet size advertised by the + ITR in the ICMP message is the effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation length. Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level. For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping @@ -1543,22 +1549,22 @@ 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-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. + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 (work in progress), + September 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 @@ -1570,20 +1576,24 @@ "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, . + [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion + Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November + 2010, . + [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 @@ -1763,194 +1773,200 @@ 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-17 +B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 + + o Posted mid-September 2018. + + o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). + +B.2. 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 +B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 +B.4. 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 + o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. -B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 +B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 +B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 +B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 o Posted July 2018. o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. -B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 +B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 +B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 +B.10. 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 +B.11. 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.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 +B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 +B.13. 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". o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. 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. + o Clarify when private addresses can be used. -B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 +B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 o Posted August 2017. - o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. + o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. -B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 +B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 +B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 +B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 o Posted April 2017. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. -B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 +B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 +B.19. 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