< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14.txt >
	Network Working Group D. Farinacci		Network Working Group D. Farinacci
	Internet-Draft V. Fuller		Internet-Draft V. Fuller
	Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer		Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer
	Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis		Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis
	Expires: January 16, 2019 Cisco Systems		Expires: February 23, 2019 Cisco Systems
	A. Cabellos (Ed.)		A. Cabellos (Ed.)
	UPC/BarcelonaTech		UPC/BarcelonaTech
	July 15, 2018		August 22, 2018
	The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)		The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
	draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
	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 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 46 ¶
	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 January 16, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 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/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 47 ¶
	10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28		13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28
	13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
	16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
	17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	18.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
			20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37		Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38		B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38
	B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38		B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38
	B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38		B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38
	B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 38		B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38
	B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 38		B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 38
	B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39		B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39
	B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 39		B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39
	B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 39		B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 39
	B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40		B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 39
	B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40		B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 40		B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 40		B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 40		B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 40
	B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41		B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 40
			B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
	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 4, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 20 ¶
	LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]		LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
	specifies the LISP control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can be		specifies the LISP control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can be
	found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network		found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network
	operational management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]		operational management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
	describes the LISP architecture.		describes the LISP architecture.
	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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] and
			[RFC8174].
	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
	the Data-Plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI		the Data-Plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI
	value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified		value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified
	encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets		encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets
	following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.		following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
	skipping to change at page 29, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 5 ¶
	well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This		well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This
	forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed		forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed
	Locator.		Locator.
	If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one		If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one
	will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new		will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new
	records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be		records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be
	useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings		useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings
	can be efficiently packed.		can be efficiently packed.
	We propose here a Data-Plane mechanism (Map-Versioning) to update the		We propose here a Data-Plane mechanism (Map-Versioning specified in
	contents of EID-to-RLOC mappings. Please note that in addition the		[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]) to update the contents of EID-to-RLOC
	Solicit-Map Request (specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) is a		mappings. Please note that in addition the Solicit-Map Request
	Control-Plane mechanisms that can be used to update EID-to-RLOC		(specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) is a Control-Plane
	mappings.		mechanisms that can be used to update EID-to-RLOC mappings.
	13.1. Database Map-Versioning		13.1. 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, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version
	Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs		Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs
	skipping to change at page 32, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 32, line 14 ¶
	or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms.		or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms.
	In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective		In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective
	technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the Control-Plane.		technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the Control-Plane.
	17. Network Management Considerations		17. Network Management Considerations
	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. IANA Considerations		18. Changes since RFC 6830
			For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
			made to this document since RFC 6830 was published:
			o It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers
			be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more
			than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However,
			this document recommends a maximum of 2 LISP headers.
			o The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
			for [RFC8060]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named
			the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is
			still documented as reserved.
			o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made
			optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote
			ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any
			interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache
			population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
			for map-cache population.
			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].
	18.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers		19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
	The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP		The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP
	Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as		Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as
	follows:		follows:
	lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets		lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
	19. References		20. References
	19.1. 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", draft-ietf-
	lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.		lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
	Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,		Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
	"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",		"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
	draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 (work in progress), March		draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 (work in progress), July
	2018.		2018.
	[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>.
	skipping to change at page 33, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 33, line 44 ¶
	[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition		[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
	of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",		of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
	RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,		RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
	[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6		[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
	(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,		(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
	19.2. Informative References		20.2. Informative References
	[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-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural		Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
	skipping to change at page 36, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 36, line 36 ¶
	[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.		[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
	Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated		Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
	Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,		Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
	[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
			[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
			2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
			May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID		[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
	Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,		Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments		Appendix A. Acknowledgments
	An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the		An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
	initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value		initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
	to the LISP authors.		to the LISP authors.
	skipping to change at page 38, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 38, line 5 ¶
	The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari		The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
	Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP		Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
	documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his		documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
	meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group		meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
	last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.		last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.
	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-13		B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
			o Posted August 2018.
			o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
			Standard.
			o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are
			informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
			B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
	o Posted March IETF Week 2018.		o Posted March IETF Week 2018.
	o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.		o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
	o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new		o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
	OAM document.		OAM document.
	o Some references changed from normative to informative		o Some references changed from normative to informative
	B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12		B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
	o Posted July 2018.		o Posted July 2018.
	o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.		o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
	B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11		B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
	o Posted March 2018.		o Posted March 2018.
	o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and		o 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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10		B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
	o Posted March 2018.		o Posted March 2018.
	o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-		o 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		o 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'.		o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
	B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09		B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
	o Posted January 2018.		o Posted January 2018.
	o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during		o 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		o 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.		o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
	o More editorial changes.		o More editorial changes.
	o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.		o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
	B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08		B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
	o Posted January 2018.		o Posted January 2018.
	o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.		o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
	o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.		o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
	o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi		o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
	Iannone.		Iannone.
	o Ran IDNITs on the document.		o Ran IDNITs on the document.
	B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07		B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
	o Posted November 2017.		o Posted November 2017.
	o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]		o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
	addresses.		addresses.
	B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06		B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
	o Posted October 2017.		o Posted October 2017.
	o Put RTR definition before it is used.		o Put RTR definition before it is used.
	o Rename references that are now working group drafts.		o Rename references that are now working group drafts.
	o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other		o 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".
	skipping to change at page 40, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 40, line 17 ¶
	o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.		o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
	o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.		o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
	o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.		o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
	o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.		o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
	o Clarify when private addreses can be used.		o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
	B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05		B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
	o Posted August 2017.		o Posted August 2017.
	o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.		o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
	B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04		B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
	o Posted July 2017.		o Posted July 2017.
	o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.		o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
	o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums		o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
	over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.		over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
	B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03		B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
	o Posted May 2017.		o Posted May 2017.
	o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA		o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
	Considerations section to RFC6833bis.		Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
	B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02		B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
	o Posted April 2017.		o Posted April 2017.
	o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.		o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
	B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01		B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
	o Posted March 2017.		o Posted March 2017.
	o Include references to new RFCs published.		o Include references to new RFCs published.
	o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.		o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
	o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.		o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
	o Remove references to "experimental".		o Remove references to "experimental".
	B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00		B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
	o Posted December 2016.		o Posted December 2016.
	o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp		o 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
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
End of changes. 29 change blocks.
	49 lines changed or deleted		89 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/