[lisp] LISP-GPE Review

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

I read the LISP-GPE document.
Hereafter you can find my comments.

Ciao

L. 



> 
> 
> 
> 
> Internet Engineering Task Force                                 D. Lewis
> Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
> Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Lemon
> Expires: September 6, 2018                                      Broadcom
>                                                               P. Agarwal
>                                                                 Innovium
>                                                               L. Kreeger
> 
>                                                                 P. Quinn
>                                                                 M. Smith
>                                                                 N. Yadav
>                                                            F. Maino, Ed.
>                                                                    Cisco
>                                                           March 05, 2018
> 
> 
>                     LISP Generic Protocol Extension
>                          draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-01
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>    (LISP),

I would add “Data-Plane” .

> via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-protocol
>    encapsulation.
> 
> Status of This Memo
> 
>    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
>    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
>    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
>    Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
> 
>    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> 
>    This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018.
> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
>    Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
>    document authors.  All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 1]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
>    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
>    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
>    (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
>    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
>    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
>    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
>    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
>    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
>    described in the Simplified BSD License.
> 
> Table of Contents
> 
>    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
>      1.1.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>      1.2.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    2.  LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . .   3
>    3.  Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)  . . . . . . .   3
>    4.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
>      4.1.  Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
>      4.2.  VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
>    5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
>    6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
>    7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
>    8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
>      8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
>      8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
>    Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>    LISP, as defined in [RFC6830]

I would not cite 6830 in this document. The document defining the standard is 6830bis, hence I would refer only to the latter.

> and extended in
>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines an encapsulation format that
>    carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth referred to as IP) packets in a LISP
>    header and outer UDP/IP transport.
> 
>    The LISP header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated and
>    therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP packet
>    payloads.  Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348] (which
>    defines a similar header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate L2
>    protocols such as Ethernet.
> 
>    This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
>    the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
>    the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.
> 
>    A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
>    presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field.  The Next Protocol field,
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 2]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
>    when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
>    and map-versioning features.  The two features are still available,
>    albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.
> 
> 1.1.  Conventions
> 
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
>    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
> 
> 1.2.  Definition of Terms
> 
>    This document uses terms already defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
> 
> 2.  LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions
> 
>    As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol
>    identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried.  Because
>    of this, LISP is limited to carry IP payloads.
> 
>    The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags
>    (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an
>    instance ID/Locator-status-bit field.  The flags provide flexibility
>    to define how the various fields are encoded.  Notably, Flag bit 5 is
>    the last reserved bit in the LISP header.
> 
> 
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
>                                 LISP Header
> 
> 3.  Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)
> 
>    This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in
>    order to support multi-protocol encapsulation:
> 
>    P Bit:  Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.  The P bit
>       MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next
>       protocol field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 3]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
>       P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined
>       in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit
>       because this flag bit is currently unallocated.
> 
>    Next Protocol:  The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to
>       carry a Next Protocol.  This Next Protocol field contains the
>       protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
> 
>       LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce,
>       an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning [RFC6834].  These are
>       all optional capabilities that are indicated in the LISP header by
>       setting the N, E, and the V bit respectively.
> 
>       When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
>       middle 16 bits.
> 
>       When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is
>       the middle 16 bits.
> 
>       When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0,
>       the middle 16-bits are set to 0.
> 
>       This draft

s/draft/document/

> defines the following Next Protocol values:
> 
> 
> 
>       0x1 :  IPv4
> 
>       0x2 :  IPv6
> 
>       0x3 :  Ethernet
> 
>       0x4 :  Network Service Header [RFC8300]
> 
> 
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|        Nonce/Map-Version      | Next Protocol |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
>        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> 
>                               LISP-GPE Header
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 4]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
> 4.  Backward Compatibility
> 
>    LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.
> 
>    A LISP-GPE router MUST not encapsulate non-IP packets to a LISP
>    router.  A method for determining the capabilities of a LISP router
>    (GPE or "legacy") is out of the scope of this draft.
> 

I think this is too restrictive IMO and will will cause problem in incremental deployments. 

Imagine deploying LISP-GPE in the beta network…  we cannot because this would mean having a flag day, which is impossible.

I think would be better to have bits N, E, V to 0 when P is 1 in this way there is compatibility.

A legacy LISP data-plane box will never participate in a mapping that is not IP over IP, hence LISP-GPE can send traffic with P=1 and Next protocol equal 1 or 2.
The legacy LISP box will receive the packet, will ignore the P bit and decapsulate as IP over IP and will work without problems.

For the other direction, legacy LISP box sending to LISP-GPE box, everything depends again on the mappings. 
Legacy LISP will talk only to xTR that locators using IP over IP, cannot do otherwise. The receiving LISP-GPE is able to handle legacy LISP traffic.

The mappings deliver the information of "what is mapped on what"  just using LCAF, but details are out of the scope of this document. 


>    When encapsulating IP packets to a LISP "legacy" router the P bit
>    MUST be set to 0.
> 
> 4.1.  Type of Service
> 
>    When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
>    802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from
>    the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in the outer IPv4
>    header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' field.
> 
> 4.2.  VLAN Identifier (VID)
> 
>    When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
>    header 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or
>    used to determine the LISP Instance ID field.
> 
> 5.  IANA Considerations
> 
>    IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
>    These are 8-bit values.  Next Protocol values in the table below are
>    defined in this draft.

s/draft/document/

>  New values are assigned via Standards Action
>    [RFC5226].
> 
>               +---------------+-------------+---------------+
>               | Next Protocol | Description | Reference     |
>               +---------------+-------------+---------------+
>               | 0             | Reserved    | This Document |
>               | 1             | IPv4        | This Document |
>               | 2             | IPv6        | This Document |
>               | 3             | Ethernet    | This Document |
>               | 4             | NSH         | This Document |
>               | 5..255        | Unassigned  |               |
>               +---------------+-------------+---------------+
> 
> 6.  Security Considerations
> 
>    LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
>    considerations documented at length in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].

The reference here must be lisp threats not 6833bis.



>    With LISP-GPE, issues such as dataplane spoofing, flooding, and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 5]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
>    traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
>    encapsulated.
> 
> 7.  Acknowledgements
> 
>    A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
>    detailed review.
> 
> 8.  References
> 
> 8.1.  Normative References
> 
>    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
>               editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
> 

The following can be informative.
>    [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
>               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <https://www.rfc-
>               editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
> 

I would drop this.
>    [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
>               Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-
>               editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
> 
>    [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
>               Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-
>               editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
> 

This is informative.
>    [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
>               L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
>               eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
>               Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
>               Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
> 

This is informative.
>    [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
>               "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-
>               editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 6]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
> 8.2.  Informative References
> 


This is Authoritative. 
>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
>               Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
>               Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>               (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 (work in progress),
>               March 2018.
> 
> Authors' Addresses
> 
>    Darrel Lewis
>    Cisco Systems
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
>    John Lemon
>    Broadcom
>    3151 Zanker Road
>    San Jose, CA  95134
>    USA
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
>    Puneet Agarwal
>    Innovium
>    USA
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
>    Larry Kreeger
>    USA
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
>    Paul Quinn
>    Cisco Systems
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
>    Michael Smith
>    Cisco Systems
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 7]
> Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension          March 2018
> 
> 
>    Navindra Yadav
>    Cisco Systems
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
>    Fabio Maino (editor)
>    Cisco Systems
>    San Jose, CA  95134
>    USA
> 
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 8]