draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-34.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-35.txt
	skipping to change at page 1, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 16 ¶
	Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting		Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting
	Expires: March 13, 2021 D. Meyer		Expires: March 13, 2021 D. Meyer
	1-4-5.net		1-4-5.net
	D. Lewis		D. Lewis
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	A. Cabellos (Ed.)		A. Cabellos (Ed.)
	UPC/BarcelonaTech		UPC/BarcelonaTech
	September 9, 2020		September 9, 2020
	The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)		The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
	draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-34		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-35
	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 22, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 22, line 18 ¶
	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. Additional		This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. Additional
	information about in-network MTU and fragmentation issues can be		information about in-network MTU and fragmentation issues can be
	found at [RFC4459].		found at [RFC4459].
	7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling		7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
	An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as		An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as
	follows, this solution can only be used with IPv4-encapsulated		follows:
	packets:
	1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per		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		Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can
	deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.		deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.
	2. When an IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1,		2. When an IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1,
	exceeds what the core network can deliver, one of the		exceeds what the core network can deliver, one of the
	intermediate routers on the path will send an an ICMPv4		intermediate routers on the path will send an an ICMPv4
	Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The		Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. The
	ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is		ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is
End of changes. 2 change blocks.
	3 lines changed or deleted		2 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/