< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17.txt >
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer
Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis
Expires: February 28, 2019 Cisco Systems Expires: March 1, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.) A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
August 27, 2018 August 28, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
(RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP
effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache. according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 1, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 29 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 21 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28
13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 38 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 39
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 38 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 39
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 39
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 39
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 39
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 39
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 39 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 40
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 40
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 40
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 40 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 40
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 40 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 41
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 41
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 41
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 41 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 41
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 41 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 42
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 41 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 42
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
skipping to change at page 13, line 10 skipping to change at page 13, line 10
Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6 header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6
packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header
is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined
in [RFC8060]. in [RFC8060].
As LISP uses UDP encapsulation to carry traffic between xTRs across
the Internet, implementors should be aware of the provisions of
[RFC8085], especially those given in section 3.1.11 on congestion
control for UDP tunneling.
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length | / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
skipping to change at page 32, line 36 skipping to change at page 32, line 41
the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is
still documented as reserved. still documented as reserved.
o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made o Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made
optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote optional. If any ITR implementations depend or assume the remote
ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any
interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache
population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
for map-cache population. for map-cache population.
o The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length
are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures
to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
19. IANA Considerations 19. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers 19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP
Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as
skipping to change at page 36, line 26 skipping to change at page 36, line 37
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
skipping to change at page 38, line 5 skipping to change at page 39, line 5
The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
o Posted late August 2018.
o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
has been shortened in length.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
o Posted late August 2018. o Posted late August 2018.
o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues. for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
o Posted August 2018. o Posted August 2018.
o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
Standard. Standard.
o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementators are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
o Posted July 2018 IETF week. o Posted July 2018 IETF week.
o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract. o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
o Posted March IETF Week 2018. o Posted March IETF Week 2018.
o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC. o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
OAM document. OAM document.
o Some references changed from normative to informative o Some references changed from normative to informative
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
o Posted July 2018. o Posted July 2018.
o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status. o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
o Posted March 2018. o Posted March 2018.
o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and
Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM
document. document.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
o Posted March 2018. o Posted March 2018.
o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data- o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-
Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and
weights). weights).
o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2 o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2
(ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port
Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC
probing probing
o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'. o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
o Posted January 2018. o Posted January 2018.
o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
encapsulation and decapsulation. encapsulation and decapsulation.
o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section
from various commenters. from various commenters.
o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
o More editorial changes. o More editorial changes.
o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
o Posted January 2018. o Posted January 2018.
o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
Iannone. Iannone.
o Ran IDNITs on the document. o Ran IDNITs on the document.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
o Posted November 2017. o Posted November 2017.
o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
addresses. addresses.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
o Posted October 2017. o Posted October 2017.
o Put RTR definition before it is used. o Put RTR definition before it is used.
o Rename references that are now working group drafts. o Rename references that are now working group drafts.
o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other
hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
skipping to change at page 40, line 35 skipping to change at page 41, line 40
o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
o Clarify when private addreses can be used. o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
o Posted August 2017. o Posted August 2017.
o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
o Posted July 2017. o Posted July 2017.
o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
o Posted May 2017. o Posted May 2017.
o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis. Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
o Posted April 2017. o Posted April 2017.
o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
o Posted March 2017. o Posted March 2017.
o Include references to new RFCs published. o Include references to new RFCs published.
o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
o Remove references to "experimental". o Remove references to "experimental".
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016. o Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 68 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/