< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23.txt | draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24.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: April 6, 2019 Cisco Systems | Expires: April 14, 2019 Cisco Systems | |||
A. Cabellos (Ed.) | A. Cabellos (Ed.) | |||
UPC/BarcelonaTech | UPC/BarcelonaTech | |||
October 3, 2018 | October 11, 2018 | |||
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) | The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) | |||
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 | draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 | |||
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 April 6, 2019. | This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 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 3, line 6 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 6 ¶ | |||
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | |||
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 | Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 40 | |||
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 40 | B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 | B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 | B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 | B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 | B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 41 | B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 41 | |||
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 41 | B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 | B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 | B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 42 | B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 42 | |||
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 | B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 43 | |||
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 | B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 43 | |||
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 | B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 43 | |||
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 43 | B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 43 | |||
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 | B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 | B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 | B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 | B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 44 | ||||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 | |||
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 7, line 45 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 45 ¶ | |||
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. | reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST | |||
rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the | ||||
Locator-Status-Bits. | ||||
Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a | Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a | |||
negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix | negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix | |||
is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set | is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set | |||
for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty, one with an encoded Locator | for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty, one with an encoded Locator | |||
count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix | count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix | |||
from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping | from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping | |||
database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are | database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are | |||
encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. | encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. | |||
skipping to change at page 24, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 36 ¶ | |||
controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer- | controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer- | |||
header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the | header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the | |||
server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or | server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or | |||
Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST | Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST | |||
assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority | assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority | |||
with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding | with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding | |||
cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on | cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on | |||
Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. | Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. | |||
Instead of using the Map-Cache or mapping system, RLOC information | Instead of using the Map-Cache or mapping system, RLOC information | |||
MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map- | MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or Map-Request | |||
Request messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the | messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source | |||
source RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and | RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a | |||
used for a few seconds, pending verification. Verification is | few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by | |||
performed by sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner- | sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source | |||
header IP source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A | address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this | |||
reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the | "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry | |||
Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the | for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the time indicated | |||
time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a | from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map- | |||
verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs | Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent | |||
for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches the EID- | packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the | |||
Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, | verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to | |||
refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. | Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism. | |||
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be | RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be | |||
reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for the Locator | reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for the Locator | |||
record is set to 1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST | record is set to 1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST | |||
NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a | NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a | |||
Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides | Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides | |||
reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not | reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not | |||
part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the | part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the | |||
Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next | Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next | |||
section. | section. | |||
skipping to change at page 34, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 34, line 31 ¶ | |||
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", draft-ietf- | |||
lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018. | lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 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-16 (work in progress), | draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 (work in progress), October | |||
September 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>. | |||
[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 39, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 39, line 17 ¶ | |||
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. | |||
A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for | A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for | |||
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation | providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation | |||
of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP | of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP | |||
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a | architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a | |||
practical and incremental transition for the Internet. | practical and incremental transition for the Internet. | |||
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have | The original authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people | |||
contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal. | who have contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this | |||
They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller, | proposal. They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, | |||
Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston, | Jason Schiller, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay | |||
David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley, | Gill, Geoff Huston, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted | |||
Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler, | Seely, Mark Townsley, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter | |||
Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi | Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier | |||
Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry | Bonaventure, Luigi Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel | |||
Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van | Halpern, Terry Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, | |||
Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien | Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc | |||
Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David | Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap | |||
Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin, | Lahiri, David Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, | |||
Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari | Fred Templin, Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro | |||
Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu, | Marques, Jari Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, | |||
Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri | Xu Xiaohu, Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John | |||
Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina | Drake, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job | |||
Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils, | Snijders, Vina Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, | |||
Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. | Clarence Filsfils, Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. | |||
This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF. | This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF. | |||
An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working | An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working | |||
group document that became this RFC. | group document that became this RFC. | |||
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. | |||
The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the | ||||
people who help put LISP on standards track in the IETF. They | ||||
include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino, | ||||
Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete | ||||
Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kuhlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin | ||||
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, | ||||
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed | ||||
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The | ||||
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and | ||||
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-22 | B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 | |||
o Posted mid October 2018. | ||||
o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben. | ||||
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 | ||||
o Posted early October 2018. | o Posted early October 2018. | |||
o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security | o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security | |||
concerns from Telechat. | concerns from Telechat. | |||
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 | B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 | |||
o Posted early October 2018. | o Posted early October 2018. | |||
o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. | o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat. | |||
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 | B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 | |||
o Posted late-September 2018. | o Posted late-September 2018. | |||
o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. | o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. | |||
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 | B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 | |||
o Posted late-September 2018. | o Posted late-September 2018. | |||
o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. | o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040. | |||
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 | B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 | |||
o Posted late-September 2018. | o Posted late-September 2018. | |||
o More editorial changes. | o More editorial changes. | |||
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 | B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 | |||
o Posted mid-September 2018. | o Posted mid-September 2018. | |||
o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). | o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja). | |||
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 | B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 | |||
o Posted September 2018. | o Posted September 2018. | |||
o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document | o 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. | o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control. | |||
o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. | o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews. | |||
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 | B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 | |||
o Posted late August 2018. | o Posted late August 2018. | |||
o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP | o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP | |||
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. | for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. | |||
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 | B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 | |||
o Posted August 2018. | o Posted August 2018. | |||
o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed | o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed | |||
Standard. | Standard. | |||
o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are | o 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.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 | B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 | |||
o Posted July 2018 IETF week. | o Posted July 2018 IETF week. | |||
o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. | o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. | |||
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 | B.12. 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.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 | B.13. 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.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 | B.14. 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.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 | B.15. 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.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 | B.16. 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.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 | B.17. 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.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 | B.18. 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.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 | B.19. 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 43, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 43, line 48 ¶ | |||
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 addresses can be used. | o Clarify when private addresses can be used. | |||
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 | B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 | |||
o Posted August 2017. | o Posted August 2017. | |||
o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. | o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. | |||
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 | B.21. 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.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 | B.22. 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.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 | B.23. 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.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 | B.24. 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.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 | B.25. 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 | |||
Tasman Drive | Tasman Drive | |||
San Jose, CA 95134 | San Jose, CA 95134 | |||
USA | USA | |||
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com | EMail: farinacci@gmail.com | |||
Vince Fuller | Vince Fuller | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
Tasman Drive | Tasman Drive | |||
San Jose, CA 95134 | San Jose, CA 95134 | |||
USA | USA | |||
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com | EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com | |||
Dave Meyer | Dave Meyer | |||
Cisco Systems | Cisco Systems | |||
End of changes. 36 change blocks. | ||||
88 lines changed or deleted | 108 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/ |