Return-Path: X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F8112B02F; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Ia-qz06TJ_NV; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18CD812B01F; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id oz2so56069555pac.2; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=QLg4BVl5h93mOJhpow6pj7/91TzCZJ/WMt2YMinI5j0=; b=pRZlZsNF/+5i9tldwbUbVFl5PgRxosedOQOsCVRacjX+TYFs1CWdy6gDwlaUSnV/ym Jpiue3tRjeWRC4li4tpVM0jr+AuxScKXC7suGmkTCBSwEastuFSzXirTMStTxDcGL3pS 79IwGmZ9tHFNEsbbbM3oQ5HKBKCsCVrhHlxdGGxeSx6urq58iIp0JpzzB/30FjRxVMF4 i65d9D3v+7Z4ky0Rm93Dh3Bsd66IV4kOsUU2b2KqQZimAqeHBxPpMU8NNqEU9gTxLMK0 YSDglD4s5m+DWCaOA7zQYjlr+2FZuVtDazCC9Tdmiq024IU+mfUfFJFgg/Yenbt9WwqK wNuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=QLg4BVl5h93mOJhpow6pj7/91TzCZJ/WMt2YMinI5j0=; b=jpE3TrQSj/ZoLjr4MxBC+Pu5Fxprma1SyA1sXbT96Yx6GQxKImtnD9BtJiTrvSksH/ 0BiOFWqXgYCEKSqDw/zH5UX7eC8sJBHcjpg7WtICKUdPqi5hSjlbmSYpgBXeBeA/r3bF UlxmnR6gP0Cii/MaIcKwiShZVk+GVcmmX794mBGV+UEsvpam647iu/ipKqNv9DqHQHMy ggJWZc9Kf9FvVlqpfVZfS2Bdjm599frnI/X0E5m5MP53NhAxHALizCISPCli8OtPIVJD l9anR/ItY6cDQF/hIWlVGtnnnEfb1GRWYLUqTWmTH/JarwR1yecyYLVlOIVvSytd5hFq 2CDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rl+ZXwd85YNdYLod/tJPG4jN4q9fsMloAQvq3QWNL36Vmzp4j104b1PJTwVLCCilw== X-Received: by 10.66.227.132 with SMTP id sa4mr11054842pac.176.1474841704696; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:8d01:89f0:7958:5e82:524d:c6d5? ([2601:646:8d01:89f0:7958:5e82:524d:c6d5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p128sm25691595pfg.38.2016.09.25.15.15.02 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <17032e8e-f1d0-8fb4-7294-2e2ca5c9fb06@mandelberg.org> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 15:15:02 -0700 Message-Id: <2290972B-B93D-496A-8AF3-16B72D19B654@gmail.com> References: <17032e8e-f1d0-8fb4-7294-2e2ca5c9fb06@mandelberg.org> To: David Mandelberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: Dino Farinacci , The IESG , draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf.all@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15 X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Security Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:15:12 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the = IESG. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security > area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these > comments just like any other last call comments. Thanks a lot for your comments. See responses inline. > I found one issue in various parts of the document (described below), > but I'm not sure it's relevant to security. If it is, then I think = this > document is Almost Ready. If not, then I think this document is Ready > With Nits. >=20 > There are multiple places in the document where it's possible to = encode > semantically equivalent information in multiple ways, despite the word > "canonical" being in the title of the document. Is there anything that > relies on these addresses being canonical for security purposes? No not for security purposes. There are multiple ways because we allow = some nesting of information as well as allow for compatibility for older = implementations that can=E2=80=99t parse some AFIs and LCAFs but is = required to parse the AFI-List LCAF type. > Multiple places in the document (sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.8) specify > mask lengths, but do not specify that the masked out bits MUST be set = to > zero. Hmm, by definition, a mask-length of say 24 if a mask of 0xffffff00. And = in 4.1: IID mask-len: if the AFI is set to 0, then this format is not encoding an extended EID-prefix but rather an instance-ID range where the 'IID mask-len' indicates the number of high-order bits used in the Instance ID field for the range. It is clear that the high-order bits are used that cover the mask-length = and the low-order bits are ignored. Is this not clear to you? Would you = want me to say the high-order bits are added with a mask and the bits = not covered by the mask are set to 0? > Section 4.4: The description of RTR RLOC Address gives two different > ways to encode an address with zero RTRs. Correct. Since a list of RTRs can be encoded, you could have this = encoding (which is valid and needs to be dealt with, hence the = language): afi=3D1, IPv4 RTR afi=3D0, nothing follows afi=3D2, IPv6 RTR The above is a list of 2 RTRs but encoded with 3 entries. > Section 4.10.5: If I understand the compatibility mode correctly, this > explicitly creates a second way to encode a semantically identical = address. Right, if an implementation does not support the Geo-Coordinates LCAF = encoding but wants to encapsulate to the RLOC encoded, it knows how to = skip over the Geo-Coordinates section and get to an AFI encoded address = that it knows how to parse and use. > Section 5.4: There are many different ways to encode equivalent JSON > data here. Maybe, but can you be more clear. I don=E2=80=99t think it is a bug. Do = you? > Section 6 (Security Considerations): There is no discussion of these > addresses being canonical, and what other systems might or might not > rely on these addresses being canonical. In this respect =E2=80=9Ccanonical=E2=80=9D is relative to how LISP = defines to encode both simple AFI encoded addresses or more = complex/flexible addresses that accompany information. > I also have some questions/nits: >=20 > Section 3: Shouldn't the LCAF sort-key of {afi, LCAF-Type} also = include > the RLOC-address or LCAF payload? It cannot because each LCAF-Type has a complex set of attributes. = Sometimes a list of RLOCs. > Section 4.3: Altitude is described as a signed integer, but this > document doesn't specify the encoding. I assume it's two's complement, > but that should probably be made explicit. Yes, I have fixed the text. > Section 4.7: The Key Count description talks about "Key sections," but > doesn't say which fields are part of the key section (and can thus be > repeated). I have a guess which fields are part of the key section, = but > it's not entirely clear. I added some text to clarify this. > Section 4.7: The Key Algorithm description doesn't point to a registry > of valid values or otherwise say how to interpret values in that = field. We have put that in a use-case document. This Security Key LCAF is used = by 2 use-cases. It is used for LISP-DDT and for lisp-crypto. In the = lisp-crypto document we have a registry for cipher suites used. > --=20 > David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn > http://david.mandelberg.org/ See enclosed a -16 txt file and rfcdiff.html file. Thanks again, Dino --Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft lispers.net Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer Expires: March 29, 2017 Brocade J. Snijders NTT Communications September 25, 2016 LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16 Abstract This draft defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP Mapping Database System. Requirements Language 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 [RFC2119]. 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 March 29, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 1] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Segmentation using LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses . . . . . 10 4.4. NAT Traversal Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. Multicast Group Membership Information . . . . . . . . . 14 4.6. Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels . . . 16 4.7. Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database . . . . . . 17 4.8. Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.9. Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding . . . . 21 4.10. Applications for AFI List Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.10.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.10.2. Layer-2 VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.10.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . . 24 4.10.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings . . 25 4.10.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . 27 5.1. Convey Application Specific Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.2. Generic Database Mapping Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.3. PETR Admission Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . 30 5.4. Data Model Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5.5. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 5.6. Multiple Data-Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt . . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt . . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt . . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt . . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt . . . . . . . . . 40 Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 2] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt . . . . . . . . . 40 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt . . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt . . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt . . . . . . . . . 42 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt . . . . . . . . . 42 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt . . . . . . . . . 42 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1. Introduction The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). To provide flexibility for current and future applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI), length, and value fields. Currently defined AFIs include IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which are formatted according to code-points assigned in [AFI] as follows: IPv4 Encoded Address: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 1 | IPv4 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 3] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 IPv6 Encoded Address: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 2 | IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ This document describes the currently-defined AFIs the LISP protocol uses along with their encodings and introduces the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) that can be used to define the LISP-specific encodings for arbitrary AFI values. 2. Definition of Terms Address Family Identifier (AFI): a term used to describe an address encoding in a packet. Address families are defined for IPv4 and IPv6. See [AFI] and [RFC3232] for details. The reserved AFI value of 0 is used in this specification to indicate an unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is 0 bytes following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. Unspecified Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Endpoint ID (EID): a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address today, for example through a DNS lookup or SIP exchange. The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-prefix block associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a host to refer to other hosts. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 4] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Routing Locator (RLOC): the IPv4 or IPv6 address of an egress tunnel router (ETR). It is the output of a EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as PA addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. 3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings IANA has assigned AFI value 16387 (0x4003) to the LISP architecture and protocols. This specification defines the encoding format of the LISP Canonical Address (LCA). This section defines all types for which an initial allocation in the LISP-LCAF registry is requested. See IANA Considerations section for the complete list of such types. The Address Family AFI definitions from [AFI] only allocate code- points for the AFI value itself. The length of the address or entity that follows is not defined and is implied based on conventional experience. When the LISP protocol uses LCAF definitions from this document, the AFI-based address lengths are specified in this document. When new LCAF definitions are defined in other use-case documents, the AFI-based address lengths for any new AFI encoded addresses are specified in those documents. The first 6 bytes of an LISP Canonical Address are followed by a variable number of fields of variable length: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Rsvd2 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Rsvd1: this 8-bit field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Flags: this 8-bit field is for future definition and use. For now, set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt. Type: this 8-bit field is specific to the LISP Canonical Address formatted encodings, currently allocated values are: Type 0: Null Body Type Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 5] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Type 1: AFI List Type Type 2: Instance ID Type Type 3: AS Number Type Type 4: Application Data Type Type 5: Geo Coordinates Type Type 6: Opaque Key Type Type 7: NAT-Traversal Type Type 8: Nonce Locator Type Type 9: Multicast Info Type Type 10: Explicit Locator Path Type Type 11: Security Key Type Type 12: Source/Dest Key Type Type 13: Replication List Entry Type Type 14: JSON Data Model Type Type 15: Key/Value Address Pair Type Type 16: Encapsulation Format Type Rsvd2: this LCAF Type dependent 8-bit field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. See specific LCAF Type for specific bits not reserved. Length: this 16-bit field is in units of bytes and covers all of the LISP Canonical Address payload, starting and including the byte after the Length field. When including the AFI, an LCAF encoded address will have a minimum length of 8 bytes when the Length field is 0. The 8 bytes include the AFI, Flags, Type, Reserved, and Length fields. When the AFI is not next to encoded address in a control message, then the encoded address will have a minimum length of 6 bytes when the Length field is 0. The 6 bytes include the Flags, Type, Reserved, and Length fields. [RFC6830] states RLOC records are sorted when encoded in control messages so the locator-set has consistent order across all xTRs for Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 6] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 a given EID. The sort order is based on sort-key {afi, RLOC- address}. When an RLOC is LCAF encoded, the sort-key is {afi, LCAF- Type}. Therefore, when a locator-set has a mix of AFI records and LCAF records, they are ordered from smallest to largest AFI value. 4. LISP Canonical Address Applications 4.1. Segmentation using LISP When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private addresses [RFC1918] as EID-prefixes, their address spaces must remain segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI based address unique. Another use for the Instance ID LISP Canonical Address Format is when creating multiple segmented VPNs inside of a LISP site where keeping EID-prefix based subnets is desirable. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 7] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Instance ID LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 2 | IID mask-len | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IID mask-len: if the AFI is set to 0, then this format is not encoding an extended EID-prefix but rather an instance-ID range where the 'IID mask-len' indicates the number of high-order bits used in the Instance ID field for the range. Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI address that follows the Instance ID field including the AFI field itself. Instance ID: the low-order 24-bits that can go into a LISP data header when the I-bit is set. See [RFC6830] for details. The reason for the length difference is so that the maximum number of instances supported per mapping system is 2^32 while conserving space in the LISP data header. This comes at the expense of limiting the maximum number of instances per xTR to 2^24. If an xTR is configured with multiple instance-IDs where the value in the high-order 8 bits are the same, then the low-order 24 bits MUST be unique. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. This LISP Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID or RLOC addresses. Usage: When used as a lookup key, the EID is regarded as a extended- EID in the mapping system. This encoding is used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 8] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.2. Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database When an AS number is stored in the LISP Mapping Database System for either policy or documentation reasons, it can be encoded in a LISP Canonical Address. AS Number LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 3 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AS Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI address that follows the AS Number field including the AFI field itself. AS Number: the 32-bit AS number of the autonomous system that has been assigned either the EID or RLOC that follows. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. The AS Number Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID or RLOC addresses. The former is used to describe the LISP-ALT AS number the EID-prefix for the site is being carried for. The latter is used to describe the AS that is carrying RLOC based prefixes in the underlying routing system. Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map- Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 9] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.3. Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses If an ETR desires to send a Map-Reply describing the Geo Coordinates for each locator in its locator-set, it can use the Geo Coordinate Type to convey physical location information. Coordinates are specified using the WGS-84 (World Geodetic System) reference coordinate system [WGS-84]. Geo Coordinate LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 5 | Rsvd2 | 12 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Altitude | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI address that follows the 8-byte Longitude and Latitude fields including the AFI field itself. N: When set to 1 means North, otherwise South. Latitude Degrees: Valid values range from 0 to 90 degrees above or below the equator (northern or southern hemisphere, respectively). Latitude Minutes: Valid values range from 0 to 59. Latitude Seconds: Valid values range from 0 to 59. E: When set to 1 means East, otherwise West. Longitude Degrees: Value values are from 0 to 180 degrees right or left of the Prime Meridian. Longitude Minutes: Valid values range from 0 to 59. Longitude Seconds: Valid values range from 0 to 59. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 10] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Altitude: Height relative to sea level in meters. This is a two's complement signed integer meaning that the altitude could be below sea level. A value of 0x7fffffff indicates no Altitude value is encoded. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. The Geo Coordinates Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID or RLOC addresses. When used for EID encodings, you can determine the physical location of an EID along with the topological location by observing the locator-set. Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map- Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 11] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.4. NAT Traversal Scenarios When a LISP system is conveying global address and mapped port information when traversing through a NAT device, the NAT-Traversal LCAF Type is used. See [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] for details. NAT-Traversal Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 7 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MS UDP Port Number | ETR UDP Port Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Global ETR RLOC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | MS RLOC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Private ETR RLOC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | RTR RLOC Address 1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | RTR RLOC Address k ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI addresses that follows the UDP Port Number field including the AFI fields themselves. MS UDP Port Number: this is the UDP port number of the Map-Server and is set to 4342. ETR UDP Port Number: this is the port number returned to a LISP system which was copied from the source port from a packet that has flowed through a NAT device. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. Global ETR RLOC Address: this is an address known to be globally unique built by NAT-traversal functionality in a LISP router. MS RLOC Address: this is the address of the Map-Server used in the destination RLOC of a packet that has flowed through a NAT device. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 12] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Private ETR RLOC Address: this is an address known to be a private address inserted in this LCAF format by a LISP router that resides on the private side of a NAT device. RTR RLOC Address: this is an encapsulation address used by an ITR or PITR which resides behind a NAT device. This address is known to have state in a NAT device so packets can flow from it to the LISP ETR behind the NAT. There can be one or more NAT Reencapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR) [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] addresses supplied in these set of fields. The number of RTRs encoded is determined by the LCAF length field. When there are no RTRs supplied, the RTR fields can be omitted and reflected by the LCAF length field or an AFI of 0 can be used to indicate zero RTRs encoded. Usage: This encoding can be used in Info-Request and Info-Reply messages. The mapping system does not store this information. The information is used by an xTR and Map-Server to convey private and public address information when traversing NAT and firewall devices. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 13] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.5. Multicast Group Membership Information Multicast group information can be published in the mapping database. So a lookup on an group address EID can return a replication list of RLOC group addresses or RLOC unicast addresses. The intent of this type of unicast replication is to deliver packets to multiple ETRs at receiver LISP multicast sites. The locator-set encoding for this EID record type can be a list of ETRs when they each register with "Merge Semantics". The encoding can be a typical AFI encoded locator address. When an RTR list is being registered (with multiple levels according to [I-D.coras-lisp-re]), the Replication List Entry LCAF type is used for locator encoding. This LCAF encoding can be used to send broadcast packets to all members of a subnet when each EIDs are away from their home subnet location. Multicast Info Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 9 | Rsvd2 | 8 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Source MaskLen| Group MaskLen | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Source/Subnet Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Group Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of fields that follow. Reserved: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt. Instance ID: the low-order 24-bits that can go into a LISP data header when the I-bit is set. See [RFC6830] for details. The use of the Instance-ID in this LCAF type is to associate a multicast forwarding entry for a given VPN. The instance-ID describes the VPN and is registered to the mapping database system as a 3-tuple of (Instance-ID, S-prefix, G-prefix). Source MaskLen: the mask length of the source prefix that follows. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 14] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Group MaskLen: the mask length of the group prefix that follows. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. When a specific AFI = has its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either a group address or a broadcast address. Source/Subnet Address is the source address or prefix for encoding a (S,G) multicast entry. Group Address is the group address or group prefix for encoding (S,G) or (*,G) multicast entries. Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map- Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 15] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.6. Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels For a given EID lookup into the mapping database, this LCAF format can be returned to provide a list of locators in an explicit re- encapsulation path. See [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for details. Explicit Locator Path (ELP) Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 10 | Rsvd2 | n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd3 |L|P|S| AFI =3D x | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reencap Hop 1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd3 |L|P|S| AFI =3D x | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reencap Hop k ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of fields that follow. Rsvd3: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Lookup bit (L): this is the Lookup bit used to indicate to the user of the ELP to not use this address for encapsulation but to look it up in the mapping database system to obtain an encapsulating RLOC address. RLOC-Probe bit (P): this is the RLOC-probe bit which means the Reencap Hop allows RLOC-probe messages to be sent to it. When the R-bit is set to 0, RLOC-probes must not be sent. When a Reencap Hop is an anycast address then multiple physical Reencap Hops are using the same RLOC address. In this case, RLOC-probes are not needed because when the closest RLOC address is not reachable another RLOC address can be reachable. Strict bit (S): this is the strict bit which means the associated Rencap Hop is required to be used. If this bit is 0, the reencapsulator can skip this Reencap Hop and go to the next one in the list. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 16] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. When a specific AFI = has its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either a group address or a broadcast address. Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. This encoding does not need to be understood by the mapping system for mapping database lookups since this LCAF type is not a lookup key. 4.7. Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database When a locator in a locator-set has a security key associated with it, this LCAF format will be used to encode key material. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] for details. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 17] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Security Key Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 11 | Rsvd2 | 6 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key Count | Rsvd3 | Key Algorithm | Rsvd4 |R| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key Length | Key Material ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... Key Material | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Locator Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of fields that start with the Key Material field. Key Count: the Key Count field declares the number of Key sections included in this LCAF. A key section is made up the "Key Length" and "Key Material" fields. Rsvd3: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Key Algorithm: the Algorithm field identifies the key's cryptographic algorithm and specifies the format of the Public Key field. Rsvd4: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. R bit: this is the revoke bit and, if set, it specifies that this Key is being Revoked. Key Length: this field determines the length in bytes of the Key Material field. Key Material: the Key Material field stores the key material. The format of the key material stored depends on the Key Algorithm field. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].This is the locator address that owns the encoded security key. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 18] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map- Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. 4.8. Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups When both a source and destination address of a flow needs consideration for different locator-sets, this 2-tuple key is used in EID fields in LISP control messages. When the Source/Dest key is registered to the mapping database, it can be encoded as a source- prefix and destination-prefix. When the Source/Dest is used as a key for a mapping database lookup the source and destination come from a data packet. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 19] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Source/Dest Key Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 12 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Source-ML | Dest-ML | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Source-Prefix ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Destination-Prefix ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of fields that follow. Reserved: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt. Source-ML: the mask length of the source prefix that follows. Dest-ML: the mask length of the destination prefix that follows. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. When a specific AFI = has its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either a group address or a broadcast address. Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map- Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. Refer to [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for usage details of this LCAF type. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 20] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.9. Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding The Replication List Entry LCAF type is an encoding for a locator being used for unicast replication according to the specification in [I-D.coras-lisp-re]. This locator encoding is pointed to by a Multicast Info LCAF Type and is registered by Re-encapsulating Tunnel Routers (RTRs) that are participating in an overlay distribution tree. Each RTR will register its locator address and its configured level in the distribution tree. Replication List Entry Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 13 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd3 | Rsvd4 | Level Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | RTR/ETR #1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Rsvd3 | Rsvd4 | Level Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | RTR/ETR #n ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of fields that follow. Rsvd{1,2,3,4}: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt. Level Value: this value is associated with the level within the overlay distribution tree hierarchy where the RTR resides. The level numbers are ordered from lowest value being close to the ITR (meaning that ITRs replicate to level-0 RTRs) and higher levels are further downstream on the distribution tree closer to ETRs of multicast receiver sites. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. A specific AFI has = its own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address. For efficiency reasons, all RTR/ETR entries for the same level should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map- Reply message. Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 21] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.10. Applications for AFI List Type 4.10.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses When header translation between IPv4 and IPv6 is desirable a LISP Canonical Address can use the AFI List Type to carry a variable number of AFIs in one LCAF AFI. Address Binding LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 1 | Rsvd2 | 2 + 4 + 2 + 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 1 | IPv4 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv4 Address | AFI =3D 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length: length in bytes is fixed at 24 when IPv4 and IPv6 AFI encoded addresses are used. This type of address format can be included in a Map-Request when the address is being used as an EID, but the Mapping Database System lookup destination can use only the IPv4 address. This is so a Mapping Database Service Transport System, such as LISP-ALT [RFC6836], can use the Map-Request destination address to route the control message to the desired LISP site. Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map- Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. See subsections in this section for specific use cases. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 22] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.10.2. Layer-2 VPNs When MAC addresses are stored in the LISP Mapping Database System, the AFI List Type can be used to carry AFI 6. MAC Address LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 1 | Rsvd2 | 2 + 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 6 | Layer-2 MAC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... Layer-2 MAC Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length: length in bytes is fixed at 8 when MAC address AFI encoded addresses are used. This address format can be used to connect layer-2 domains together using LISP over an IPv4 or IPv6 core network to create a layer-2 VPN. In this use-case, a MAC address is being used as an EID, and the locator-set that this EID maps to can be an IPv4 or IPv6 RLOCs, or even another MAC address being used as an RLOC. See [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] for how layer-2 VPNs operate when doing EID mobility. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 23] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.10.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database If DNS names or URIs are stored in the LISP Mapping Database System, the AFI List Type can be used to carry an ASCII string where it is delimited by length 'n' of the LCAF Length encoding. ASCII LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 1 | Rsvd2 | 2 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 17 | DNS Name or URI ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes AFI=3D17 field and the = null-terminated ASCII string (the last byte of 0 is included). Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 24] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.10.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings When any combination of above is desirable, the AFI List Type value can be used to carry within the LCAF AFI another LCAF AFI (for example, Application Specific Data see Section 5.1. Recursive LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 1 | Rsvd2 | 8 + 18 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 4 | Rsvd2 | 12 + 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP TOS, IPv6 QQS or Flow Label | Protocol | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Port (lower-range) | Local Port (upper-range) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote Port (lower-range) | Remote Port (upper-range) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 1 | IPv4 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length: length in bytes is fixed at 18 when an AFI=3D1 IPv4 address = is included. This format could be used by a Mapping Database Transport System, such as LISP-ALT [RFC6836], where the AFI=3D1 IPv4 address is used as an EID and placed in the Map-Request destination address by the sending LISP system. The ALT system can deliver the Map-Request to the LISP destination site independent of the Application Data Type AFI payload values. When this AFI is processed by the destination LISP site, it can return different locator-sets based on the type of application or level of service that is being requested. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 25] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 4.10.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case A LISP system should use the AFI List Type format when sending to LISP systems that do not support a particular LCAF Type used to encode locators. This allows the receiving system to be able to parse a locator address for encapsulation purposes. The list of AFIs in an AFI List LCAF Type has no semantic ordering and a receiver should parse each AFI element no matter what the ordering. Compatibility Mode Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 1 | Rsvd2 | 8 + 14 + 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 5 | Rsvd2 | 12 + 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Altitude | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 0 | AFI =3D 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ If a system does not recognized the Geo Coordinate LCAF Type that is accompanying a locator address, an encoder can include the Geo Coordinate LCAF Type embedded in a AFI List LCAF Type where the AFI in the Geo Coordinate LCAF is set to 0 and the AFI encoded next in the list is encoded with a valid AFI value to identify the locator address. A LISP system is required to support the AFI List LCAF Type to use this procedure. It would skip over 10 bytes of the Geo Coordinate LCAF Type to get to the locator address encoding (an IPv4 locator address). A LISP system that does support the Geo Coordinate LCAF Type can support parsing the locator address within the Geo Coordinate LCAF encoding or in the locator encoding that follows in the AFI List LCAF. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 26] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 5. Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications 5.1. Convey Application Specific Data When a locator-set needs to be conveyed based on the type of application or the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) of a packet, the Application Data Type can be used. Application Data LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 4 | Rsvd2 | 12 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP TOS, IPv6 TC, or Flow Label | Protocol | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Local Port (lower-range) | Local Port (upper-range) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote Port (lower-range) | Remote Port (upper-range) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI address that follows the 8-byte Application Data fields including the AFI field itself. IP TOS, IPv6 TC, or Flow Label: this field stores the 8-bit IPv4 TOS field used in an IPv4 header, the 8-bit IPv6 Traffic Class or Flow Label used in an IPv6 header. Local Port/Remote Port Ranges: these fields are from the TCP, UDP, or SCTP transport header. A range can be specified by using a lower value and an upper value. When a single port is encoded, the lower and upper value fields are the same. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. The Application Data Canonical Address Type is used for an EID encoding when an ITR wants a locator-set for a specific application. When used for an RLOC encoding, the ETR is supplying a locator-set for each specific application is has been configured to advertise. Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map- Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 27] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. This LCAF type is used as a lookup key to the mapping system that can return a longest-match or exact-match entry. 5.2. Generic Database Mapping Lookups When the LISP Mapping Database system holds information accessed by a generic formatted key (where the key is not the usual IPv4 or IPv6 address), an opaque key may be desirable. Opaque Key LISP Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 6 | Rsvd2 | 3 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key Field Num | Key Wildcard Fields | Key . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . . . Key | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the type's payload. The value n is the number of bytes that follow this Length field. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 28] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Key Field Num: the value of this field is the the number of "Key" sub-fields minus 1, the "Key" field can be broken up into. So if this field has a value of 0, there is 1 sub-field in the "Key". The width of the sub-fields are fixed length. So for a key size of 8 bytes, with a Key Field Num of 3, allows 4 sub-fields of 2 bytes each in length. Allowing for a reasonable number of 16 sub- field separators, valid values range from 0 to 15. Key Wildcard Fields: describes which fields in the key are not used as part of the key lookup. This wildcard encoding is a bitfield. Each bit is a don't-care bit for a corresponding field in the key. Bit 0 (the low-order bit) in this bitfield corresponds the first field, the low-order field in the key, bit 1 the second field, and so on. When a bit is set in the bitfield it is a don't-care bit and should not be considered as part of the database lookup. When the entire 16-bits is set to 0, then all bits of the key are used for the database lookup. Key: the variable length key used to do a LISP Database Mapping lookup. The length of the key is the value n (as shown above). Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been defined yet. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 29] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 5.3. PETR Admission Control Functionality When a public PETR device wants to verify who is encapsulating to it, it can check for a specific nonce value in the LISP encapsulated packet. To convey the nonce to admitted ITRs or PITRs, this LCAF format is used in a Map-Register or Map-Reply locator-record. Nonce Locator Canonical Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 8 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Nonce | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI address that follows the Nonce field including the AFI field itself. Reserved: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt. Nonce: this is a nonce value returned by an ETR in a Map-Reply locator-record to be used by an ITR or PITR when encapsulating to the locator address encoded in the AFI field of this LCAF type. This nonce value is inserted in the nonce field in the LISP header encapsulation. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been defined yet. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 30] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 5.4. Data Model Encoding This type allows a JSON data model to be encoded either as an EID or RLOC. JSON Data Model Type Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 14 | Rsvd2 |B| 2 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | JSON length | JSON binary/text encoding ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Optional Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of the fields that follow the "JSON length" field. Rsvd{1,2}: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt. B bit: indicates that the JSON field is binary encoded according to [JSON-BINARY] when the bit is set to 1. Otherwise the encoding is based on text encoding according to [RFC7159]. JSON length: length in octets of the following 'JSON binary/text encoding' field. JSON binary/text encoding field: a variable length field that contains either binary or text encodings. AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. A specific AFI has = its own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address. All RTR/ETR entries for the same level should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map-Reply message. Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been defined yet. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 31] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 5.5. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs The Key/Value pair is for example useful for attaching attributes to other elements of LISP packets, such as EIDs or RLOCs. When attaching attributes to EIDs or RLOCs, it's necessary to distinguish between the element that should be used as EID or RLOC, and hence as key for lookups, and additional attributes. This is especially the case when the difference cannot be determined from the types of the elements, such as when two IP addresses are being used. Key/Value Pair Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 15 | Rsvd2 | n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address as Key ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D y | Address as Value ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length value n: length in bytes of fields that follow. Rsvd{1,2}: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt. AFI =3D x: x is the "Address as Key" AFI that can have any value = from [AFI]. A specific AFI has its own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address. All RTR/ETR entries for the same level should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map- Reply message. Address as Key: this AFI encoded address will be attached with the attributes encoded in "Address as Value" which follows this field. AFI =3D y: y is the "Address of Value" AFI that can have any value from [AFI]. A specific AFI has its own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address. All RTR/ETR entries for the same level should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map-Reply message. Address as Value: this AFI encoded address will be the attribute address that goes along with "Address as Key" which precedes this field. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 32] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been defined yet. 5.6. Multiple Data-Planes Overlays are becoming popular in many parts of the network which have created an explosion of data-plane encapsulation headers. Since the LISP mapping system can hold many types of address formats, it can represent the encapsulation format supported by an RLOC as well. When an encapsulator receives a Map-Reply with an Encapsulation Format LCAF Type encoded in an RLOC-record, it can select an encapsulation format, that it can support, from any of the encapsulation protocols which have the bit set to 1 in this LCAF type. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 33] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Encapsulation Format Address Format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type =3D 16 | Rsvd2 | 4 + n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations |U|G|N|v|V|l|L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI =3D x | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Rsvd1/Rsvd2: must be set to zero and ignored on receipt. Length value n: length in bytes of the AFI address that follows the next 32-bits including the AFI field itself. Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations: must be set to zero and ignored on receipt. This field will get bits allocated to future encapsulations, as they are created. L: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept layer3 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port 4341 [RFC6830]. l: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept layer2 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port 8472 [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2]. V: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept VXLAN encapsulation using destination UDP port 4789 [RFC7348]. v: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept VXLAN-GPE encapsulation using destination UDP port 4790 [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe]. N: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept NV-GRE encapsulation using IPv4/ IPv6 protocol number 47 [RFC7637]. G: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept GENEVE encapsulation using destination UDP port 6081 [I-D.gross-geneve]. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 34] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 U: The RLOCs listed in the AFI encoded addresses in the next longword can accept GUE encapsulation using destination UDP port TBD [I-D.herbert-gue]. Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 35] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 6. Security Considerations There are no security considerations for this specification. The security considerations are documented for the protocols that use LISP Canonical Addressing. The use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type may raise physical privacy issues. Care should be taken when configuring the mapping system to use specific policy parameters so geo-location information is not returned gratuitously. 7. IANA Considerations This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP Mapping Database System. Such address format is based on a fixed AFI (16387) and a LISP LCAF Type field. The LISP LCAF Type field is an 8-bit field specific to the LISP Canonical Address formatted encodings, for which IANA is to create and maintain a new registry (as outlined in [RFC5226]) entitled "LISP LCAF Type". Initial values for the LISP LCAF Type registry are given below. Future assignments are to be made through expert review with a specification required publication. Assignments consist of a LISP LCAF Type name and its associated value: +-------+------------------------------+------------+ | Value | LISP LCAF Type Name | Definition | +-------+------------------------------+------------+ | 0 | Null Body Type | Section 3 | | 1 | AFI List Type | Section 3 | | 2 | Instance ID Type | Section 3 | | 3 | AS Number Type | Section 3 | | 5 | Geo Coordinates Type | Section 3 | | 7 | NAT-Traversal Type | Section 3 | | 9 | Multicast Info Type | Section 3 | | 10 | Explicit Locator Path Type | Section 3 | | 11 | Security Key Type | Section 3 | | 12 | Source/Dest Key Type | Section 3 | | 13 | Replication List Entry Type | Section 3 | +-------+------------------------------+------------+ Table 1: LISP LCAF Type Initial Values Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 36] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, January 2002, . [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, . [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, . [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, January 2013, . [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March 2014, . [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, . [RFC7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation", RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015, . Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 37] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 8.2. Informative References [AFI] IANA, , "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/numbers.html, Febuary 2007. [I-D.coras-lisp-re] Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J., Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-08 (work in progress), November 2015. [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino, F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan- lisp-nat-traversal-11 (work in progress), August 2016. [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-11 (work in progress), September 2016. [I-D.gross-geneve] Gross, J., Sridhar, T., Garg, P., Wright, C., Ganga, I., Agarwal, P., Duda, K., Dutt, D., and J. Hudson, "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft- gross-geneve-02 (work in progress), October 2014. [I-D.herbert-gue] Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP Encapsulation", draft-herbert-gue-03 (work in progress), March 2015. [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp- ddt-08 (work in progress), September 2016. [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid- mobility-00 (work in progress), April 2016. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 38] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe] Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F., Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg, P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN", draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04 (work in progress), February 2015. [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2] Smith, M., Dutt, D., Farinacci, D., and F. Maino, "Layer 2 (L2) LISP Encapsulation Format", draft-smith-lisp- layer2-03 (work in progress), September 2013. [JSON-BINARY] "Universal Binary JSON Specification", URL http://ubjson.org. [WGS-84] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . Appendix A. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Vince Fuller, Gregg Schudel, Jesper Skriver, Luigi Iannone, Isidor Kouvelas, and Sander Steffann for their technical and editorial commentary. The authors would like to thank Victor Moreno for discussions that lead to the definition of the Multicast Info LCAF type. The authors would like to thank Parantap Lahiri and Michael Kowal for discussions that lead to the definition of the Explicit Locator Path (ELP) LCAF type. The authors would like to thank Fabio Maino and Vina Ermagan for discussions that lead to the definition of the Security Key LCAF type. The authors would like to thank Albert Cabellos-Aparicio and Florin Coras for discussions that lead to the definition of the Replication List Entry LCAF type. Thanks goes to Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for suggesting new LCAF types. Thanks also goes to Terry Manderson for assistance obtaining a LISP AFI value from IANA. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 39] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Appendix B. Document Change Log [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt o Submitted September 2016. o Addressed comments from Security Directorate reviewer David Mandelberg. B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt o Submitted September 2016. o Addressed comments from Routing Directorate reviewer Stig Venass. B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt o Submitted July 2016. o Fix IDnits errors and comments from Luigi Iannone, document shepherd. B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt o Submitted May 2016. o Explain the Instance-ID LCAF Type is 32-bits in length and the Instance-ID field in the LISP encapsulation header is 24-bits. B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt o Submitted March 2016. o Updated references and document timer. o Removed the R, J, and L bits from the Multicast Info Type LCAF since working group decided to not go forward with draft- farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-03.txt in favor of draft- ietf-lisp- signal-free-00.txt. B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt o Submitted September 2015. o Reflecting comments from Prague LISP working group. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 40] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 o Readying document for a LISP LCAF registry, RFC publication, and for new use-cases that will be defined in the new charter. B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt o Submitted June 2015. o Fix coauthor Job's contact information. B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt o Submitted June 2015. o Fix IANA Considerations section to request a registry to allocate and track LCAF Type values. B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt o Submitted April 2015. o Comment from Florin. The Application Data Type length field has a typo. The field should be labeled "12 + n" and not "8 + n". o Fix length fields in the sections titled "Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings", "Generic Database Mapping Lookups", and "Data Model Encoding". B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt o Submitted December 2014. o Add a new LCAF Type called "Encapsulation Format" so decapsulating xTRs can inform encapsulating xTRs what data-plane encapsulations they support. B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt o Submitted October 2014. o Make it clear how sorted RLOC records are done when LCAFs are used as the RLOC record. B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt o Submitted May 2014. o Add a length field of the JSON payload that can be used for either binary or text encoding of JSON data. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 41] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt o Submitted January 2014. o Agreement among ELP implementors to have the AFI 16-bit field adjacent to the address. This will make the encoding consistent with all other LCAF type address encodings. B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt o Submitted September 2013. o Updated references and author's affilations. o Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN. o Add port range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type. o Add a new JSON LCAF Type. o Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached to an address. B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt o Submitted March 2013. o Added new LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to support LISP replication engineering use-cases. o Changed references to new LISP RFCs. B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt o Submitted January 2013. o Change longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in section 4.4. o Added reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4. B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt o Posted first working group draft August 2012. o This draft was renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt. Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 42] =0C Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) September 2016 Authors' Addresses Dino Farinacci lispers.net San Jose, CA USA Email: farinacci@gmail.com Dave Meyer Brocade San Jose, CA USA Email: dmm@1-4-5.net Job Snijders NTT Communications Theodorus Majofskistraat 100 Amsterdam 1065 SZ NL Email: job@ntt.net Farinacci, et al. Expires March 29, 2017 [Page 43] --Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=rfcdiff-lcaf.html Content-Type: text/html; name="rfcdiff-lcaf.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Diff: draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt - = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20= = =
< draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt  =  draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt >
=
Network Working = Group D. Farinacci = Network Working Group = D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft = lispers.net Internet-Draft = lispers.net
Intended status: = Experimental D. Meyer = Intended status: Experimental = D. Meyer
Expires: March = 23, 2017 = Brocade Expires: March 29, 2017 = Brocade
= J. Snijders = J. Snijders
= NTT Communications = NTT Communications
= September 19, 2016 = September 25, 2016
=
= LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) = LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
= draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15 = = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16
=
Abstract = Abstract
=
This draft = defines a canonical address format encoding used in LISP = This draft defines a canonical address = format encoding used in LISP
control = messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP = control messages and in the encoding of = lookup keys for the LISP
Mapping = Database System. Mapping Database = System.
=
Requirements = Language Requirements Language
=
The key words = "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", = "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
=
skipping to = change at = page 1, line 41 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 1, line 41 =C2=B6
= 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 = http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at = http://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 March 23, = 2017. This Internet-Draft will = expire on March 29, 2017.
=
Copyright = Notice Copyright Notice
=
Copyright (c) = 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
= (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of = (http://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 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 2, line 47 =C2=B6
5.4. Data = Model Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 = 5.4. Data Model Encoding . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.5. = Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 = 5.5. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs . = . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.6. = Multiple Data-Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 = 5.6. Multiple Data-Planes . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. Security = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7. IANA = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. References = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 37
8.1. = Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 = 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 37
8.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 = 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 = Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix B. = Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 = Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40 B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40
B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40 B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40
B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40 B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40
B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40 B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40
B.5. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40 B.5. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt . = . . . . . . . . 40
B.6. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt . . . . . . . . . 41 = B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt . . . . . . . . . = 40
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41 B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt . . . . . . . . . 41
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt . = . . . . . . . . 41
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt . = . . . . . . . . 42
= B.17. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt . . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' = Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 = Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 43
=
1. = Introduction 1. Introduction
=
The LISP = architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new = The LISP architecture and protocols = [RFC6830] introduces two new
numbering = spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators = numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers = (EIDs) and Routing Locators
(RLOCs). To = provide flexibility for current and future applications, = (RLOCs). To provide flexibility for current = and future applications,
these values = can be encoded in LISP control messages using a general = these values can be encoded in LISP control = messages using a general
syntax that = includes Address Family Identifier (AFI), length, and syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI), = length, and
value = fields. value fields.
=
skipping to = change at = page 11, line 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 11, line 5 =C2=B6
=
E: When set to = 1 means East, otherwise West. E: = When set to 1 means East, otherwise West.
=
Longitude = Degrees: Value values are from 0 to 180 degrees right or = Longitude Degrees: Value values are from 0 = to 180 degrees right or
left of the = Prime Meridian. left of the = Prime Meridian.
=
Longitude = Minutes: Valid values range from 0 to 59. Longitude Minutes: Valid values range from 0 to = 59.
=
Longitude = Seconds: Valid values range from 0 to 59. Longitude Seconds: Valid values range from 0 to = 59.
=
Altitude: = Height relative to sea level in meters. This is a signed = Altitude: Height relative to sea level in = meters. This is a two's
integer = meaning that the altitude could be below sea level. A complement signed = integer meaning that the altitude could be below
value of = 0x7fffffff indicates no Altitude value is encoded. sea level. A value of 0x7fffffff indicates no = Altitude value is
= encoded.
=
AFI =3D x: x = can be any AFI value from [AFI]. = AFI =3D x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
=
The Geo = Coordinates Canonical Address Type can be used to encode = The Geo Coordinates Canonical Address Type = can be used to encode
either EID or = RLOC addresses. When used for EID encodings, you can either EID or RLOC addresses. When used for EID = encodings, you can
determine the = physical location of an EID along with the topological determine the physical location of an EID along with = the topological
location by = observing the locator-set. location = by observing the locator-set.
=
Usage: This = encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map- Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC = records in Map-
Requests, = Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When = Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and = Map-Notify messages. When
=
skipping to = change at = page 18, line 27 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 18, line = 27 =C2=B6
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = ... Key Material | | ... Key Material = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = AFI =3D x | Locator Address ... | | AFI =3D x | Locator = Address ... |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
=
Length value = n: length in bytes of fields that start with the Key Length value n: length in bytes of fields that start = with the Key
Material = field. Material field.
=
Key Count: = the Key Count field declares the number of Key sections = Key Count: the Key Count field declares the = number of Key sections
included = in this LCAF. included in this = LCAF. A key section is made up the "Key = Length"
= and "Key = Material" fields.
=
Rsvd3: this = field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted = Rsvd3: this field is reserved for future = use and MUST be transmitted
as 0 and = ignored on receipt. as 0 and = ignored on receipt.
=
Key Algorithm: = the Algorithm field identifies the key's Key Algorithm: the Algorithm field identifies the = key's
= cryptographic algorithm and specifies the format of the Public = Key cryptographic algorithm and = specifies the format of the Public Key
= field. field.
=
Rsvd4: this = field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted = Rsvd4: this field is reserved for future = use and MUST be transmitted
as 0 and = ignored on receipt. as 0 and = ignored on receipt.
=
skipping to = change at = page 36, line 14 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 36, line = 14 =C2=B6
=
6. Security = Considerations 6. Security = Considerations
=
There are no = security considerations for this specification. The There are no security considerations for this = specification. The
security = considerations are documented for the protocols that use = security considerations are documented for = the protocols that use
LISP Canonical = Addressing. LISP Canonical = Addressing.
=
The use of the = Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type may raise physical privacy The use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type may raise = physical privacy
issues. Care = should be taken when configuring the mapping system to issues. Care should be taken when configuring the = mapping system to
use specific = policy parameters so geo-location information is not use specific policy parameters so geo-location = information is not
returned = gratutiosly. returned gratuitously.
=
7. IANA = Considerations 7. IANA = Considerations
=
This document = defines a canonical address format encoding used in This document defines a canonical address format = encoding used in
LISP control = messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP = LISP control messages and in the encoding of = lookup keys for the LISP
Mapping = Database System. Such address format is based on a fixed AFI = Mapping Database System. Such address = format is based on a fixed AFI
(16387) and a = LISP LCAF Type field. (16387) and a = LISP LCAF Type field.
=
The LISP LCAF = Type field is an 8-bit field specific to the LISP The LISP LCAF Type field is an 8-bit field specific = to the LISP
Canonical = Address formatted encodings, for which IANA is to create = Canonical Address formatted encodings, for = which IANA is to create
=
skipping to = change at = page 40, line 9 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 40, line 9 =C2=B6
Thanks goes to = Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for Thanks goes to Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto = Rodriguez-Natal for
suggesting new = LCAF types. suggesting new LCAF = types.
=
Thanks also = goes to Terry Manderson for assistance obtaining a LISP = Thanks also goes to Terry Manderson for = assistance obtaining a LISP
AFI value from = IANA. AFI value from IANA.
=
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-lcaf-15.txt B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt
=
= o Submitted = September 2016.
=
= o Addressed = comments from Security Directorate reviewer David
= = Mandelberg.
=
= B.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt
=
o Submitted = September 2016. o Submitted = September 2016.
=
o Addressed = comments from Routing Directorate reviewer Stig Venass. = o Addressed comments from Routing = Directorate reviewer Stig Venass.
=
B.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt B.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt
=
o Submitted = July 2016. o Submitted July = 2016.
=
o Fix IDnits = errors and comments from Luigi Iannone, document o Fix IDnits errors and comments from Luigi Iannone, = document
= shepherd. shepherd.
=
B.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt B.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt
=
o Submitted = May 2016. o Submitted May = 2016.
=
o Explain the = Instance-ID LCAF Type is 32-bits in length and the o Explain the Instance-ID LCAF Type is 32-bits in = length and the
Instance-ID = field in the LISP encapsulation header is 24-bits. Instance-ID field in the LISP encapsulation header = is 24-bits.
=
B.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt
=
o Submitted = March 2016. o Submitted March = 2016.
=
o Updated = references and document timer. o = Updated references and document timer.
=
o Removed the = R, J, and L bits from the Multicast Info Type LCAF o Removed the R, J, and L bits from the Multicast = Info Type LCAF
since = working group decided to not go forward with draft- since working group decided to not go forward with = draft-
= farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-03.txt in favor of draft- = ietf-lisp- = farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-03.txt in favor of draft- ietf-lisp-
= signal-free-00.txt. = signal-free-00.txt.
=
B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt
=
o Submitted = September 2015. o Submitted = September 2015.
=
o Reflecting = comments from Prague LISP working group. o Reflecting comments from Prague LISP working = group.
=
o Readying = document for a LISP LCAF registry, RFC publication, and = o Readying document for a LISP LCAF = registry, RFC publication, and
for new = use-cases that will be defined in the new charter. for new use-cases that will be defined in the new = charter.
=
B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt
=
o Submitted = June 2015. o Submitted June = 2015.
=
o Fix = coauthor Job's contact information. = o Fix coauthor Job's contact information.
=
B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt
=
o Submitted = June 2015. o Submitted June = 2015.
=
o Fix IANA = Considerations section to request a registry to allocate = o Fix IANA Considerations section to = request a registry to allocate
and track = LCAF Type values. and track LCAF = Type values.
=
B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt
=
o Submitted = April 2015. o Submitted April = 2015.
=
o Comment = from Florin. The Application Data Type length field has a = o Comment from Florin. The Application = Data Type length field has a
typo. The = field should be labeled "12 + n" and not "8 + n". typo. The field should be labeled "12 + n" and = not "8 + n".
=
o Fix length = fields in the sections titled "Using Recursive LISP o Fix length fields in the sections titled "Using = Recursive LISP
Canonical = Address Encodings", "Generic Database Mapping Lookups", = Canonical Address Encodings", "Generic = Database Mapping Lookups",
and "Data = Model Encoding". and "Data Model = Encoding".
=
B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt B.10. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt
=
o Submitted = December 2014. o Submitted = December 2014.
=
o Add a new = LCAF Type called "Encapsulation Format" so decapsulating = o Add a new LCAF Type called "Encapsulation = Format" so decapsulating
xTRs can = inform encapsulating xTRs what data-plane encapsulations = xTRs can inform encapsulating xTRs what = data-plane encapsulations
they = support. they support.
=
B.10. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt B.11. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt
=
o Submitted = October 2014. o Submitted October = 2014.
=
o Make it = clear how sorted RLOC records are done when LCAFs are used = o Make it clear how sorted RLOC records are = done when LCAFs are used
as the RLOC = record. as the RLOC = record.
=
B.11. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt B.12. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt
=
o Submitted = May 2014. o Submitted May = 2014.
=
o Add a = length field of the JSON payload that can be used for either = o Add a length field of the JSON payload = that can be used for either
binary or = text encoding of JSON data. = binary or text encoding of JSON data.
=
B.12. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt B.13. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt
=
o Submitted = January 2014. o Submitted January = 2014.
=
o Agreement = among ELP implementors to have the AFI 16-bit field o Agreement among ELP implementors to have the AFI = 16-bit field
adjacent to = the address. This will make the encoding consistent adjacent to the address. This will make the = encoding consistent
with all = other LCAF type address encodings. = with all other LCAF type address encodings.
=
B.13. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt B.14. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt
=
o Submitted = September 2013. o Submitted = September 2013.
=
o Updated = references and author's affilations. = o Updated references and author's affilations.
=
o Added = Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative = o Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info = Type so there is relative
ease in = parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN. = ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN.
=
o Add port = range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type. o Add port range encodings to the Application Data = LCAF Type.
=
o Add a new = JSON LCAF Type. o Add a new JSON = LCAF Type.
=
o Add Address = Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached o Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow = attributes to be attached
to an = address. to an address.
=
B.14. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt B.15. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt
=
o Submitted = March 2013. o Submitted March = 2013.
=
o Added new = LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to support LISP o Added new LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to = support LISP
replication = engineering use-cases. = replication engineering use-cases.
=
o Changed = references to new LISP RFCs. o = Changed references to new LISP RFCs.
=
B.15. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt B.16. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt
=
o Submitted = January 2013. o Submitted January = 2013.
=
o Change = longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in section 4.4. o Change longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in = section 4.4.
=
o Added = reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4. = o Added reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4.
=
B.16. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt B.17. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt
=
o Posted = first working group draft August 2012. = o Posted first working group draft August 2012.
=
o This draft = was renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt. o This draft was renamed from = draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt.
=
Authors' = Addresses Authors' Addresses
=
Dino = Farinacci Dino Farinacci
= lispers.net lispers.net
San Jose, = CA San Jose, CA
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
41 lines changed or = deleted 51 lines changed or = added

This = html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available = from http://tools.ietf.org/to= ols/rfcdiff/
=20 =20 = --Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --Apple-Mail=_C7271863-ADC2-4658-B35F-55679EB2C47D--