[lisp] multi-protocol support in RFC6830bis [ Was: RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support]

Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com> Wed, 13 December 2017 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fmaino@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66476128854 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:57:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kRcRxQKrSyre for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:57:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71DD61201F8 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:57:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513205870; x=1514415470; h=to:cc:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=CKbvcIdmgFVR9Jo6ViS2TY5+UhEmlsCLtJCAonodPqQ=; b=bjVjcIpSV5HapUhoPBkje+VhXktk2LRzshZbMdesejyXhl601JXK/CQ/ p1+RbPvg9X3h8Paz5OA6c01mIGfOL6+3xOHJOgHX2/9Cp1Mwj43x9BgSm YwIdTCpBHy/gyd95JSzZXDKVxbhrj4ik1fUmrh7y2lomXHN37x3RQPqP7 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CBAgDsrzFa/51dJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM+ZnQnhAKZKIJ7kEaFTYIVCieBNQGDXgKFE0EWAQEBAQEBAQEBax0LhSMBKVYZEwMBAisCUQ4NBgIBAYokEIsknWyCJyaKOwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGQWDYIILgVaBaSmCTIF/gWUBGIEvR4J1gmMFilOIVY93h3uNLIIWiX2HVYpFgkuJVoE7JgQugU4yGggbFYJjglMMEBmBbyA3BYdfgkgBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,398,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="335089754"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Dec 2017 22:57:25 +0000
Received: from [10.155.69.203] (dhcp-10-155-69-203.cisco.com [10.155.69.203]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBDMvOI9015549; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:57:24 GMT
To: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b6987280-e872-8c36-f7e9-b719453e84f2@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:57:24 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0309BA00DBB7C04D404BF83D"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/BoaqJunTewSdtF2ser_GcNVtpxA>
Subject: [lisp] multi-protocol support in RFC6830bis [ Was: RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support]
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:57:52 -0000

I have refreshed the LISP-GPE draft 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe) to be bit-to-bit 
compatible with the data plane encoding in RFC6830bis, as discussed in 
the thread started on Nov. 29 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/Dq18xxxQoDUkLX1Z_MCKaHZC1I4/?qid=a7da0673ad7ed2a161aa5f4334f96f19) 


As a summary of the long thread:

- bit 5 is allocated as P-bit to indicate the presence of an 8-bit Next 
Protocol field

- the Next Protocol field shares 8 bits with the Nonce/Map-Version field

- when the P-bit is set, the Nonce/Map-Version features are still 
available with shorter (16-bit vs 24-bit) Nonce/Map-Version fields


Thanks,

Fabio



-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: 	[lisp] RFC6830bis and multiprotocol support
Date: 	Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:32:40 -0800
From: 	Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>
To: 	lisp@ietf.org <lisp@ietf.org>



I would like to suggest a way to address mutiprotocol support in 
RFC6830bis, that may address what was discussed in Singapore.

This is based on using the last reserved bit in the LISP header as P bit 
to indicate support for multiprotocol encapsulation, as specified in the 
LISP-GPE draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe)

The header, as specified in section 5.1, would look like:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|Nonce/Map-Version/Next-Protocol|
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / |Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits|
P+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


and the text in section 5.3 that reserves the 6th bit would be replaced by:

P: The P-bit is the Next Protocol bit. When this bit is set to
1, the V-bit MUST be set to 0 and the Nonce length, when used, is
       limited to 16 bits. Refer to[draft-lewis-lisp-gpe] for more details.
       The P-bit is set to 1to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next
       Protocol field encoded as:

x x x 0 x 1 x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|         Nonce | Next-Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


I will have to refresh the LISP-GPE draft, and reflect the allocations 
of the KK bits according to RFC8061 and Nonce. One of the K bits was 
used by LISP-GPE to indicate OAM packets, but that same functionality 
can be done using the Next-Protocol field.

The use of the P-bit is not compatible with the Map-Versioning feature, 
but an equivalent function can be specified (if needed) with a 
Next-Protocol shim header. I can add text to the LISP-GPE draft to 
reflect that.

This would address the multiprotocol working item included in the 
current charter.

I can very quickly update the LISP-GPE draft to reflect this, but I 
wanted to hear what the group thinks first.

Thanks,
Fabio