--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-30.txt 2020-03-05 04:17:52.039283722 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-31.txt 2020-03-05 04:17:52.203287901 -0800 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft lispers.net Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting -Expires: July 16, 2020 D. Meyer +Expires: September 6, 2020 D. Meyer 1-4-5.net D. Lewis Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech - January 13, 2020 + March 5, 2020 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-30 + draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-31 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. @@ -38,21 +38,21 @@ 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 July 16, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 @@ -68,42 +68,42 @@ 1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 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 + 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28 13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 + 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 41 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 41 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 41 @@ -853,20 +853,30 @@ second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. Some xTRs and PxTRs performs re-encapsulation operations and need to treat the 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) in a special way. Because the re-encapsulation operation is a sequence of two operations, namely a decapsulation followed by an encapsulation, the ECN bits MUST be treated as described above for these two operations. + The LISP dataplane protocol is not backwards compatible with + [RFC6830] and does not have explicit support for introducing future + protocol changes (e.g. an explicit version field), However, the LISP + control plane [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] allows an ETR to register + dataplane capabilities by means of new LCAF types [RFC8060]. In this + way an ITR can be made aware of the dataplane capabilities of an ETR, + and encapsulate accordingly. The specification of the new LCAF + types, new LCAF mechanisms, and their use, is out of the scope of + this document. + 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to the corresponding RLOC network attachment point. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache. @@ -1579,27 +1588,27 @@ 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-04 (work in progress), August 2019. + lisp-6834bis-06 (work in progress), February 2020. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- - Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-26 (work in progress), - November 2019. + Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 (work in progress), + January 2020. [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 @@ -1615,20 +1624,25 @@ [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, May 2000, . [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November 2010, . + [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The + Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, + . + [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 2013, . [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, .