< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt >
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer
Expires: July 13, 2018 D. Lewis Expires: July 16, 2018 D. Lewis
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
January 9, 2018 January 12, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
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 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 July 13, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2018.
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 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 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 . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 31
13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 38
17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40
17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 51 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 51
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 51 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 51
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 51 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 51
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 51 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 51
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 52
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
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
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
skipping to change at page 18, line 42 skipping to change at page 18, line 42
that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for
an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC
with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. 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 o 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 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class' o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field
field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below). copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer
header.
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to
perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header
to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
o The inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class' o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field
field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below). copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If
the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the
stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used
to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between
the tunnel endpoints.
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
new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
header minus 1. header minus 1.
Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
skipping to change at page 51, line 5 skipping to change at page 51, 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-08 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
o Posted January 2018.
o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
encapsulation and decapsulation.
B.2. 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.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.3. 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.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.4. 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 51, line 48 skipping to change at page 52, line 7
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.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.5. 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.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.6. 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.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.7. 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.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.8. 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.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.9. 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.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.10. 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
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 78 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/