Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)CiscoSpainnatal@cisco.comGoogle, Inc.1600 Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain ViewCA94043United States of Americaermagan@gmail.comCiscoDiegemBelgiumasmirnov@cisco.comCiscoSan JoseCAUnited States of Americavrushali@cisco.comlispers.netSan JoseCAUnited States of Americafarinacci@gmail.com
RTG
LISPlisplcafinternaldomainorganizationprivateThis document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor-Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for LCAF addresses. This document updates RFC 8060.Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community.
It has received public review and has been approved for publication
by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
() 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 Revised BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
. Introduction
. Requirements Notation
. Unrecognized LCAF Types
. Vendor-Specific LCAF
. Security Considerations
. IANA Considerations
. Normative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
IntroductionThe LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) defines the format and encoding for different address types that can be used on deployments of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) . However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use case for which they are defined. This document extends to introduce a Vendor-Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF addresses to be used only on particular LISP implementations. This document also updates to specify the behavior when receiving unrecognized LCAF types.Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
shown here.
Unrecognized LCAF Types does not explain how an implementation should handle an unrecognized LCAF type. This document updates to specify that any unrecognized LCAF type received in a LISP control plane message MUST be ignored. If all Locators are ignored, this is equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as described in . If an EID-Prefix only contains unrecognized LCAF types, the LISP control message MUST be dropped and the event MUST be logged. (Here, "EID" refers to Endpoint Identifier.)Vendor-Specific LCAF
The Vendor-Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) to prevent collisions across vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor-Specific LCAF is provided below.Vendor-Specific LCAF
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 = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor-Specific LCAF are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified in . The Type field MUST be set 255, the value assigned by IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor-Specific LCAF; see . The Length field has to be set accordingly to the length of the internal format, plus the OUI, plus the Rsvd3 fields, as for . The fields defined by the Vendor-Specific LCAF are as follows:
Rsvd3:
This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI):
This is a 24-bit field that carries an OUI or Company ID (CID) assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802
Internal format:
This is a variable-length field that is left undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor-Specific LCAF.
The Vendor-Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where different organizations interoperate. However, there may be cases where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor-Specific LCAF. In that case, the organizations involved need to carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular deployment. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an organization.If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor-Specific LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the message and it SHOULD create a log message.Security ConsiderationsThis document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to properly assess the security implications of the formats they define. Security considerations from apply to this document.IANA ConsiderationsFollowing the guidelines of , IANA has assigned the following value for the Vendor-Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in ):
Vendor-Specific LCAF Assignment
Value
LISP LCAF Type Name
Reference
255
Vendor Specific
RFC 9306,
Normative ReferencesIEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and ArchitectureIEEEKey words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP Mapping Database System.Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCsMany protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key WordsRFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control PlaneAcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank , , and for their suggestions and guidance regarding this document.Authors' AddressesCiscoSpainnatal@cisco.comGoogle, Inc.1600 Amphitheatre ParkwayMountain ViewCA94043United States of Americaermagan@gmail.comCiscoDiegemBelgiumasmirnov@cisco.comCiscoSan JoseCAUnited States of Americavrushali@cisco.comlispers.netSan JoseCAUnited States of Americafarinacci@gmail.com