draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net Internet-Draft lispers.net
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting
Expires: November 3, 2022 D. Meyer Expires: 8 November 2022 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
May 2, 2022 7 May 2022
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38
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 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
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 November 3, 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 November 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 23 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 23
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 . . . . . . . . 41 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 . . . . . . . . 41
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 . . . . . . . . 41 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 . . . . . . . . 41
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 41 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 . . . . . . . . 41
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 42 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 42
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 42
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 42 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 42 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 43
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 42 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 43
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 43 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 43
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 43
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 43 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 43 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 44
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 44 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 44
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 44
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 45
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 46 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 46
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46 B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46
B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46 B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46
B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47 B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 47
B.31. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 15
2. Requirements Notation 2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Definition of Terms 3. Definition of Terms
Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to
addresses found in Data-Plane headers. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] addresses found in Data-Plane headers. See [AFN] and [RFC3232]
for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification
indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the
address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
Anycast Address: Anycast Address refers to the same IPv4 or IPv6 Anycast Address: Anycast Address refers to the same IPv4 or IPv6
address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time. address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time.
An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own
address spaces. address spaces.
Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an
EID. EID.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as well. of a LISP tunnel as well.
EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a distributed EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a distributed
database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings. database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings.
Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the
database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind" database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind"
the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses
that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be
transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP site and transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP site and
Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs.
This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators
can be used. can be used.
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally short-
short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is
responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC
mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID- mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-
to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and
relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively
static, and much more widely scoped to LISP nodes. static, and much more widely scoped to LISP nodes.
EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID-
Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix
allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set
is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block. is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.
End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
header when communicating outside of its routing domain. An end- header when communicating outside of its routing domain. An end-
system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any
network appliance. network appliance.
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value that identifies a host. EIDs are generally only found IPv6) value that identifies a host. EIDs are generally only found
in the source and destination address fields of the first (most in the source and destination address fields of the first (most
inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a destination inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a destination
EID the same way it obtains a destination address today, for EID the same way it obtains a destination address today, for
example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. The source Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. The source
EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's
"local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have
the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner;
this means, among other things, that it MUST be unique. An EID is this means, among other things, that it MUST be unique. An EID is
skipping to change at page 6, line 51 skipping to change at page 6, line 49
facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID
block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure
(subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit string visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit string
that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
different device. When used in discussions with other Locator/ID different device. When used in discussions with other Locator/ID
separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID". separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID".
Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer to an Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer to an
LEID. LEID.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a
LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then
prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this
destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has
better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the Internet on the other side. toward the Internet on the other side.
LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer to
to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-specific
specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR prepends
prepends or an ETR strips. or an ETR strips.
LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR),
or Proxy-ETR (PETR). or Proxy-ETR (PETR).
LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside
in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
edge network from the core network. edge network from the core network.
Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST
rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the
Locator-Status-Bits. Locator-Status-Bits.
Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.
Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at LISP sites. send packets to destinations at LISP sites.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
header. header.
Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to
remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this
allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the
overhead of additional tunnel headers. When using multiple overhead of additional tunnel headers. When using multiple
mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re- mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-
encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.
Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the
underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination. underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.
When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A
route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
destination of the original message appears as the source of the destination of the original message appears as the source of the
returned message. returned message.
Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is
the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to zero the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to zero
or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are
assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the
underlay network; where the topology is defined by the underlay network; where the topology is defined by the
connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate
that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a
destination EID. destination EID.
xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
functionality at the CE router. functionality at the CE router.
4. Basic Overview 4. Basic Overview
One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they
do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in
this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange
between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to- packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to-
RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the
RLOC as one of its IP addresses. RLOC as one of its IP addresses.
Some basic rules governing LISP are: Some basic rules governing LISP are:
o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are * End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are
typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are
supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End- supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End-
systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume
that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system
where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed
packets and assist in delivering them across the network core packets and assist in delivering them across the network core
where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP
packets does not change. packets does not change.
o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See * LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See
details in Section 4.2 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". details in Section 4.2 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".
o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably * RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address * When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address
either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when
terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH),
TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID
that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC; that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP
configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions
to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to
terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site.
o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- * Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to-
end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are
expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be
encapsulated for inter-site communication. encapsulated for inter-site communication.
o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for * EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).
An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential
use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such
a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new
prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an
intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an
skipping to change at page 10, line 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 12
Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.
4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet 4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet
Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for
deployment in controlled, trusted environments, and are insecure for deployment in controlled, trusted environments, and are insecure for
use over the public Internet. In particular, on the public internet use over the public Internet. In particular, on the public internet
xTRs: xTRs:
o MUST set the N, L, E, and V bits in the LISP header (Section 5.1) * MUST set the N, L, E, and V bits in the LISP header (Section 5.1)
to zero. to zero.
o MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, as described in * MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, as described in
Section 10 for Routing Locator Reachability. Instead MUST rely Section 10 for Routing Locator Reachability. Instead MUST rely
solely on control-plane methods. solely on control-plane methods.
o MUST NOT use Gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning, * MUST NOT use Gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning,
as described in Section 13 to update the EID-to-RLOC Mappings. as described in Section 13 to update the EID-to-RLOC Mappings.
Instead relying solely on control-plane methods. Instead relying solely on control-plane methods.
4.2. Packet Flow Sequence 4.2. Packet Flow Sequence
This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow, This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow,
including also Control-Plane information as specified in including also Control-Plane information as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following
conditions: conditions:
o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to * Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not
not using LISP. not using LISP.
o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address * Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
(RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.
o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and * The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
located anywhere in the LISP site. located anywhere in the LISP site.
o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the * A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the
destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a
default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database
system by using the LISP Control-Plane protocol documented in system by using the LISP Control-Plane protocol documented in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology * Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology
using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Control-Plane protocol. using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Control-Plane protocol.
Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server
host2.xyz.example.com: host2.xyz.example.com:
1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on
host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This
address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of
host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6 host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6
skipping to change at page 15, line 46 skipping to change at page 15, line 46
r + + r + +
| | | |
^ + Destination EID + ^ + Destination EID +
\ | | \ | |
\ + + \ + +
\ | | \ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram
datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] [RFC2474].
[RFC2474]. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.
Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an
ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)"
from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and
7.2. 7.2.
UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when
encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash
skipping to change at page 16, line 37 skipping to change at page 16, line 38
zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936]. LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].
UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet, the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
the UDP and LISP headers. the UDP and LISP headers.
N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1, N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1,
the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
contain a Nonce. See Section 10.1 for details. Both N- and contain a Nonce. See Section 10.1 for details. Both N- and
V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a
decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
having a Nonce value present. having a Nonce value present.
L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When
this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
32 bits of the LISP header are in use. 32 bits of the LISP header are in use.
x 1 x x 0 x x x x 1 x x 0 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Locator-Status-Bits | | Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be
and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is ignored and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the
set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the N-bit is set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting
nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP- that the nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See
Section 10.1 for details. Section 10.1 for details.
V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set
1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to the [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] to 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to the [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
specification for more details on Database Map-Versioning. This specification for more details on Database Map-Versioning. This
bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this case as: bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this case as:
0 x 0 1 x x x x 0 x 0 1 x x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more details. I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more
When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is details. When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits'
reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an field is reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as
Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits an Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order
are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format of the 8 bits are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format
LISP header would look like this: of the LISP header would look like this:
x x x x 1 x x x x x x x 1 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID | LSBs | | Instance ID | LSBs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R: The R-bit is a Reserved and unassigned bit for future use. It R: The R-bit is a Reserved and unassigned bit for future use. It
MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are
encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information. encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information.
LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce
generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
required to generate different nonces when sending to different required to generate different nonces when sending to different
skipping to change at page 18, line 39 skipping to change at page 18, line 37
the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
that the inner-header source EID address matches (longest-match). that the inner-header source EID address matches (longest-match).
If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at
least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.
When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:
o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in * The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
Live' field. Live' field.
o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) * The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
field or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be field or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be
copied from the inner-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class' copied from the inner-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header. Guidelines for field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header. Guidelines for
this can be found at [RFC2983]. this can be found at [RFC2983].
o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 * The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
specified in [RFC6040]. specified in [RFC6040].
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
o The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field or 'Hop Limit' field in * The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field or 'Hop Limit' field in
the case of IPv6, MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to the case of IPv6, MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
Live'/'Hop Limit' field, when the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' value Live'/'Hop Limit' field, when the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' value
of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit'
value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can
cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the inner header to cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' of the inner header to
increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check
is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet
comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
o The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) * The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
field or the 'Traffic Class' field in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be field or the 'Traffic Class' field in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be
copied from the outer-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class' copied from the outer-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header. Guidelines for field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header. Guidelines for
this can be found at [RFC2983]. this can be found at [RFC2983].
o The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6 * The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special
treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion
as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that
copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header
even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is
RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior in RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior in
[RFC6040]. [RFC6040].
Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- 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 encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
skipping to change at page 24, line 8 skipping to change at page 24, line 8
The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with
'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When 'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When
multiple RLOCs have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how multiple RLOCs have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how
to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight' to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight'
represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the
mapping entry. mapping entry.
The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
controls that are available: controls that are available:
o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use * The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use
one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection. one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection.
o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list * The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset
list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In
this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load- this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load-
splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs
outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some
sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
list are unreachable. list are unreachable.
o The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list. * The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list.
In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
spread across the subset list. See Section 12 for details on spread across the subset list. See Section 12 for details on
load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side
determining the list and the client-side determining load determining the list and the client-side determining load
distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable. server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.
o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean" * Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean"
the RLOCs. For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then the RLOCs. For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then
the client-side ITR gives the client-side ITR responsibility for the client-side ITR gives the client-side ITR responsibility for
bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability. Server-side bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability. Server-side
ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the
inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of
received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is
returned and can alternate using an outer-header source RLOC, returned and can alternate using an outer-header source RLOC,
which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to
return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using
this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side
skipping to change at page 25, line 49 skipping to change at page 25, line 49
3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability 3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability
algorithms described in this section. algorithms described in this section.
When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
IGP as follows: IGP as follows:
o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default * Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
route into the site IGP. route into the site IGP.
o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its * If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its
default route will either time out or be withdrawn. default route will either time out or be withdrawn.
Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
for them. for them.
When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided
they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32
address is configured on a loopback interface. address is configured on a loopback interface.
skipping to change at page 31, line 7 skipping to change at page 31, line 19
destination xTR to retreive the updated EID-to-RLOC mappings. A destination xTR to retreive the updated EID-to-RLOC mappings. A
RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5 minutes. RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5 minutes.
13.2. Database Map-Versioning 13.2. Database Map-Versioning
When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set. started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.
An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version An ETR, can send Map-Reply messages carrying a Map-Version Number in
Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs an EID-record. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number.
include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they ITRs include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and encapsulate to the site.
detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the
current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] occurs.
An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map- An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map-
Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number. Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map-
Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a
Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one
of the ETRs for the source site.
A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so When presented in EID-records of Map-Register messages, a Map-Version
values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of Number is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs for a
0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version site registering to it are synchronized according to Map-Version
Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no Number.
comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.
A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs
for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map-
Version Number.
Map-Version requires that ETRs within the LISP site are synchronized
with respect to the Map-Version Number, EID-prefix and the set and
status (up/down) of the RLOCs. The use of Map-Versioning without
proper synchronization may cause traffic disruption. The
synchronization protocol is out-of-the-scope of this document, but
MUST keep ETRs synchronized within a 1 minute window.
Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD
only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16
for security issues regarding this mechanism.
See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for a more detailed analysis and See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for a more detailed analysis and
description of Database Map-Versioning. description of Database Map-Versioning.
14. Multicast Considerations 14. Multicast Considerations
A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself
does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast
skipping to change at page 32, line 39 skipping to change at page 32, line 36
respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and
interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and
[RFC6832]. [RFC6832].
15. Router Performance Considerations 15. Router Performance Considerations
LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". A LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". A
few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement
LISP: LISP:
o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer * When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
destination address may not be the address of the router. This destination address may not be the address of the router. This
makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
that Control-Plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding that Control-Plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding
logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to
existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP Data- existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP Data-
Plane. Plane.
o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more * On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part
of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action. tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action.
o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on * A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on
can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's
routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings. routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.
For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see
Section 16. Section 16.
16. Security Considerations 16. Security Considerations
In what follows we highlight security considerations that apply when In what follows we highlight security considerations that apply when
LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in
skipping to change at page 34, line 46 skipping to change at page 34, line 46
Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be
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 * 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,
it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be
prepended to a packet. prepended to a packet.
o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated * The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
for [RFC8061]. 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 and unassigned. still documented as reserved and unassigned.
o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made * Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made
optional. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume the optional. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume the
remote ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any remote 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 * The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length
are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures
to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 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
skipping to change at page 35, line 41 skipping to change at page 35, line 41
follows: follows:
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", Work in
lisp-6834bis-09 (work in progress), August 2021. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10, 3
May 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), November Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
2020. rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31.txt>.
[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 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 37, line 31 skipping to change at page 37, line 36
[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>.
[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed",
1999, 1999,
<http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>. <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos, A. and D. S. (Ed.), "An Architectural Cabellos, A. and D. S. (Ed.), "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-15 (work in (LISP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
progress), September 2021. lisp-introduction-15, 20 September 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
introduction-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-08 (work in Networks (VPNs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
progress), January 2022. ietf-lisp-vpn-08, 18 January 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-
08.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud]
Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and
T. Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for T. Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-22 Datagram Transports", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
(work in progress), June 2020. draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-22, 10 June 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
datagram-plpmtud-22.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[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", J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>. 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 41, line 12 skipping to change at page 41, line 26
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.
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-37 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38
o Posted May 2022. * Posted May 2022.
o Added references to 6834bis instead of pointing text to * Removed detailed parapgraphs in Section 13.2 that is duplicated
text from [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], which is the authoritative
source for Map Versioning.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37
* Posted May 2022.
* Added references to 6834bis instead of pointing text to
Section 13.2. This is so we can advance the Map-Versioning draft Section 13.2. This is so we can advance the Map-Versioning draft
rfc6834bis to proposed standard. rfc6834bis to proposed standard.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28
o Posted November 2019. * Posted November 2019.
o Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators. * Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators.
o Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning. * Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning.
o Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits. * Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27
o Posted April 2019 post telechat. * Posted April 2019 post telechat.
o Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions. * Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions.
o Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with. * Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with.
o LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed * LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed
environments. environments.
o Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the * Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the
control-plane. control-plane.
o 6831/8378 are now normative. * 6831/8378 are now normative.
o Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes. * Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes.
o Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning. * Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26
o Posted late October 2018. * Posted late October 2018.
o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and * Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and
unassigned". unassigned".
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25
o Posted mid October 2018. * Posted mid October 2018.
o Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion * Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion
about echo-nonce attacks. about echo-nonce attacks.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
o Posted mid October 2018. * Posted mid October 2018.
o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. * Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23
o Posted early October 2018. * Posted early October 2018.
o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security * Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security
concerns from Telechat. concerns from Telechat.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22
o Posted early October 2018. * Posted early October 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. * Changes to reflect comments post Telechat.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21
o Posted late-September 2018. * Posted late-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. * Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20
o Posted late-September 2018. * Posted late-September 2018.
o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. * Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19
o Posted late-September 2018. * Posted late-September 2018.
o More editorial changes. * More editorial changes.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18
o Posted mid-September 2018. * Posted mid-September 2018.
o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). * Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja).
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
o Posted September 2018. * Posted September 2018.
o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document * Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
has been shortened in length. has been shortened in length.
o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control. * Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control.
o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. * More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews.
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
o Posted late August 2018. * Posted late August 2018.
o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP * Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
o Posted August 2018. * Posted August 2018.
o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed * Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
Standard. Standard.
o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are * Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
o Posted July 2018 IETF week. * Posted July 2018 IETF week.
o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. * Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
o Posted March IETF Week 2018. * Posted March IETF Week 2018.
o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. * Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new * Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
OAM document. OAM document.
o Some references changed from normative to informative * Some references changed from normative to informative
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
o Posted July 2018. * Posted July 2018.
o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. * Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
o Posted March 2018. * Posted March 2018.
o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and * 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.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
o Posted March 2018. * Posted March 2018.
o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- * 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 * 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'. * Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
o Posted January 2018. * Posted January 2018.
o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during * 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 * 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. * Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
o More editorial changes. * More editorial changes.
o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. * Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
o Posted January 2018. * Posted January 2018.
o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. * Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. * Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi * Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
Iannone. Iannone.
o Ran IDNITs on the document. * Ran IDNITs on the document.
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
o Posted November 2017. * Posted November 2017.
o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] * Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
addresses. addresses.
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
o Posted October 2017. * Posted October 2017.
o Put RTR definition before it is used. * Put RTR definition before it is used.
o Rename references that are now working group drafts. * Rename references that are now working group drafts.
o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other * 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".
o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. * Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets.
o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. * ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. * Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. * Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. * Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
o Clarify when private addresses can be used. * Clarify when private addresses can be used.
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
o Posted August 2017. * Posted August 2017.
o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. * Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
o Posted July 2017. * Posted July 2017.
o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. * Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums * Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
o Posted May 2017. * Posted May 2017.
o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA * Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis. Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
o Posted April 2017. * Posted April 2017.
o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. * Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
o Posted March 2017. * Posted March 2017.
o Include references to new RFCs published. * Include references to new RFCs published.
o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. * Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. * Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
o Remove references to "experimental". * Remove references to "experimental".
B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.31. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016. * Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp * 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
lispers.net lispers.net
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller Vince Fuller
vaf.net Internet Consulting vaf.net Internet Consulting
Email: vince.fuller@gmail.com
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer Dave Meyer
1-4-5.net 1-4-5.net
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net
Darrel Lewis Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA United States of America
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
EMail: darlewis@cisco.com
Albert Cabellos Albert Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3 Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3
Barcelona, Catalunya Barcelona Catalunya
Spain Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu
 End of changes. 205 change blocks. 
299 lines changed or deleted 287 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/