From nobody Thu Jan 4 07:56:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B5C127867; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 07:56:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: lisp@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151508138785.23714.4958525868416178405@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 07:56:27 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-yang-06.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 15:56:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : LISP YANG Model Authors : Vina Ermagan Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Florin Coras Carl Moberg Reshad Rahman Albert Cabellos-Aparicio Fabio Maino Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-yang-06.txt Pages : 56 Date : 2018-01-04 Abstract: This document describes a YANG data model to use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-yang/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-yang-06 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-yang-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-yang-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jan 4 09:00:49 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F4712D849 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:00:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.559 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.559 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=1.157, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=no 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 S7_lj2Y3P0qj for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:00:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (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 09A1212778D for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:00:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id m26so993308pfj.11 for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:00:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=CV1G8gHreQYr1RmSfF2VJoloQM/AhQ2dGtBWv7MRw60=; b=oYZrIf03z079aonDJgFMGI3PMBk8XD97H2fAbaaVhTM8//9gz9awLAkelyvK2xYbL5 fy/8MBFCaQTzcJ1gIw0/8P2Cpb0ajbCJmpoj1slWSz+HVjdx70jvv+9PuoiVg5WDQ7uy TdUOWXVRVc9vDo6CpLoBAaXYS+5ub/OVYG/UFYtlNppcwvn2Rp+UbWgJjive3gEZI84g 6RYgHsae9ICnAydRIuG+5D9rxlnDDFYZOtQWoygUDt0yhNW2VDDcSJh4rln9XqtWEw2I 4ktaO+AZGYvLK6y0sqTMPNoLlJBY5qh58RI0dOE8voqQNWlhvCgFlOLH9H16Rwv+5ktT LXIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=CV1G8gHreQYr1RmSfF2VJoloQM/AhQ2dGtBWv7MRw60=; b=EmizTt3okcLBOOFFHjDIFzhG2MpGRNZzF6yQoWKVU9/xoI0T3sYUujlsJbA1GYJGSf TI43hDH5Ptv7DkZ7yUwzEn7kmo7whuDblmP+sey7MkPImlc63DQU8EB+OHoCriDmCbh/ 6Vudh+2VCF8pomWpjjGwTHMyGaHNigYIxJ+lyPLZiQ/ku3X/04fRoui+HF43okgk5+BG dZN8JlznxT07WOnoGOpV4y2rgNoovjfS37JEWML5y8NnP4tawgJhTetJdx+gTsRvUl3+ ClVU9v5XiNCDGpr3Jyz/Pa7HO+kS0J0/z0k9rx7X8EDLeYVlNiTTS1gF0RDLnr/512mw 69Cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJFfip+ZYNXy5IuX2zEWn48KKRp7Xdy5eV0os0+qlT1u86ZFzKV twmZKDe6hOzE5cjGD/SyC1E+lnLz X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov5HONcpqxbRYGLWIDM/2UHfepnzkhjx6/hU5nJ5hJ3qPZUsKUtJSs9PkvxcKaIn+OUWr6SnA== X-Received: by 10.98.29.216 with SMTP id d207mr165514pfd.221.1515085236435; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:00:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r1sm10272697pfe.99.2018.01.04.09.00.34 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:00:35 -0800 (PST) From: Dino Farinacci Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E476F244-D6BA-4A81-BC6E-81D7E56CFBEE" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:00:30 -0800 To: "lisp@ietf.org list" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] Current changes for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:00:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E476F244-D6BA-4A81-BC6E-81D7E56CFBEE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? This was the = latest update from email before the year ended. I have made most of the = changes that Luigi suggested or requested. Dino --Apple-Mail=_E476F244-D6BA-4A81-BC6E-81D7E56CFBEE Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html Content-Type: text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Diff: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07.txt - = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 = = = = = = = = = = = = =
< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07.txt  =  draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt >
=
Network Working = Group D. Farinacci = Network Working Group = D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft = V. Fuller Internet-Draft = V. Fuller
Intended status: = Standards Track D. Meyer = Intended status: Standards Track = D. Meyer
Expires: May 15, 2018 = D. Lewis Expires: July 8, 2018 = D. Lewis
= Cisco Systems = Cisco Systems
= A. Cabellos (Ed.) = A. Cabellos (Ed.)
= UPC/BarcelonaTech = UPC/BarcelonaTech
= November = 11, 2017 = January 4, = 2018
=
= The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol = (LISP)
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 = = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
=
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. The = according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.
map-cache is populated by the LISP Control-Plane = protocol
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
LISP requires = no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay = LISP requires no change to either host = protocol stacks or to underlay
routers and = offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming = and mobility,
among other = features. among other = features.
=
Status of This = Memo Status of This Memo
=
This = Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the = This Internet-Draft is submitted in full = conformance with the
provisions of = BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of = BCP 78 and BCP 79.
=
= 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 May 15, = 2018. This Internet-Draft will = expire on July 8, 2018.
=
Copyright = Notice Copyright Notice
=
Copyright = (c) 2017 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
carefully, as = they describe your rights and restrictions with respect = carefully, as they describe your rights and = restrictions with respect
to this = document. Code Components extracted from this document must = to this document. Code Components extracted = from this document must
include = Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of = include Simplified BSD License text as = described in Section 4.e of
the Trust = Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without = warranty as
described in = the Simplified BSD License. = described in the Simplified BSD License.
=
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 = 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Packet = Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 11
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 = 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. LISP = IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1. = LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. = LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. = Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. = Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. = LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing = with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 = 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets = . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A = Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. = A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. A = Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. = A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Using = Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 = 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation = with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing = Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 = 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing = Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 = 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo = Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 = 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 = 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 = 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Routing = Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12. = Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. Changing = the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 31 13. = Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. = Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.1. = Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.2. = Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 = 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14. = Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 14. = Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15. Router = Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 = 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16. Mobility = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16. = Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16.1. Slow = Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.2. Fast = Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.3. LISP = Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 = 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 38 17. = LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37
17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17.2. = Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 = 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.3. ISP = Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.3. = ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.4. LISP = Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 = 17.4. LISP Functionality with = Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40
17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
18. = Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18. = Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
18.1. = IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.1. = IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.2. IPv4 = Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 = 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
19. Security = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 = 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 43
20. Network = Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 20. = Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
21. IANA = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.1. LISP = UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22. References = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 44
22.1. = Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 = Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix B. = Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 = Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52 = B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 = . . . . . . . . 53 B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52
B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 53 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 = . . . . . . . . 52
B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 53 B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52
B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 53 B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' = Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
= Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 52
=
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
attachment = points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between = attachment points. LISP then defines = functions for mapping between
the two = namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic = originated by
devices using = non-routable EIDs for transport across a network devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across = a network
= infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. = LISP
= encapsulation uses a = dynamic form of tunneling where no static
= provisioning is = required or necessary.
=
LISP is an = overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane, = LISP is an overlay protocol that separates = control from data-plane,
this document = specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers this document specifies the data-plane, how = LISP-capable routers
(Tunnel = Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating = them to the
appropriate = location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped = with a cache,
called = map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The map-cache = called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC = mappings. The map-cache
is populated = using the LISP Control-Plane protocol = is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
LISP does not = require changes to either host protocol stack or to LISP does not require changes to either host protocol = stack or to
=
skipping to = change at = page 4, line 31 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 4, line 33 =C2=B6
describes the = LISP architecture. describes the = LISP architecture.
=
2. Requirements = Notation 2. Requirements = Notation
=
The key words = "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", = "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", = "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this = "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", = "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are = to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in = [RFC2119].
=
3. Definition of = Terms 3. Definition of Terms
=
Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses = are an address Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used = to describe an
block assigned from a pool where blocks are not = associated with address = encoding in a packet.= An address family that pertains to
any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular the data-plane. See = [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An = AFI
service provider) and are therefore not topologically = aggregatable value of 0 used in this specification indicates an = unspecified
in the = routing system. encoded address where the = length of the address is 0 octets
= following = the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
=
Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an = address block Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
assigned to a site by each service provider to = which a site refer to the same = IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
connects. Typically, each block is a = sub-block of a service multiple systems at = the same time. An EID or RLOC can be = an
provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) = [RFC4632] block and anycast address in each of their own address spaces.
is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised = into
the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has = been
implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically = assigned and
aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this =
demonstrably non-scalable = practice.
=
Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 Client-side: = Client-side is a term used in this = document to indicate
[RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel = Router (ETR). An RLOC is a connection initiation attempt by an = EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP
the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to = one site = are the first to get involved in forwarding a packet from = the
or more RLOCs. Typically, = RLOCs are numbered from topologically source EID.
aggregatable blocks that are assigned to = a site at each = point to
which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is = a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
defined by the connectivity of provider = networks, RLOCs can be the inner-header destination address equals the = outer-header
thought of as PA = addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the destination address = used to trigger a Map-Reply by a = decapsulating
same ETR device or to = multiple ETR devices at a site. ETR. In addition, the original packet is = decapsulated and
= delivered to the = destination host if the destination EID is in the
= EID-Prefix range = configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is
= discarded. A = Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping = database
= designs to = "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; = in other
= cases, = Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design
= for details. = When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
= the underlying = routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.
= =
= Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is = a router that accepts an IP
= packet where the = destination address in the "outer" IP header is
= one of its = own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" = header and
= forwards the = packet based on the next IP header found. In
= general, an ETR = receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
= Internet on one = side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
= end-systems on = the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
= be limited = to a router device. A server host can be = the endpoint
= of a LISP tunnel = as well.
=
= EID-to-RLOC = Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global
= distributed = database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
= mappings. Each = potential ETR typically contains a small piece of
= the database: the = EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes
= "behind" the = router. These map to one of the router's own
= globally visible = IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient
= conditions when = the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for
= each EID-Prefix = may not be the same on all ETRs. This has = no
= negative = implications, since a partial set of Locators can be
= used.
=
= EID-to-RLOC = Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally
= short-lived, = on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is
= responsible for = timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC
= mappings. This = cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-
= to-RLOC mappings; = it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and
= relatively small, = while the database is distributed, relatively
= static, and much = more global in scope.
=
= EID-Prefix: An = EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
= allocated to a = site by an address allocation authority. EID-
= Prefixes are = associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix
= = allocations can be broken up into smaller = blocks when an RLOC set
= is to = be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.
=
= End-System: An = end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that = originates
= packets with a = single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The = end-system
= supplies an EID = value for the destination address field of the IP
= header when = communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing
= domain). An = end-system can be a host computer, a = switch or router
= device, or any = network appliance.
=
Endpoint ID = (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or = 128-bit (for
IPv6) value = used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination = address fields of
the first = (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains = the first (most inner) LISP header of a = packet. The host obtains
a = destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address = a destination EID the same way it obtains = a destination address
today, for = example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] today, for example, through a Domain Name System = (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or = Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) = [RFC3261] exchange.
The source = EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms = used to set a
host's = "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet = host's "local" IP address. An EID used = on the public Internet
must have = the same properties as any other IP address used in that = must have the same properties as any = other IP address used in that
manner; = this means, among other things, that it must be globally = manner; this means, among other things, = that it must be globally
unique. An = EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block unique. 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 = associated with the site where the host = is located. An EID can be
used by a = host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY = used by a host to refer to other hosts. = Note that EID blocks MAY
be assigned = in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent = of the network
topology, = to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping = database. In
addition, = an EID block assigned to a site may have = site-local addition, an EID = block assigned to a site MAY have = site-local
structure = (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure = structure (subnetting) for routing within = the site; this structure
is not = visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit = is not visible to the global routing = system. In theory, the bit
string that = represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC string that represents an EID for one device can = represent an RLOC
for a = different device. As the architecture is = realized, if a for a = different device. When used in discussions with other
given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it = must refer to the
same entity in both cases. When used in = discussions with other
Locator/ID = separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will = be called an
"LEID". = Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer = "LEID". Throughout this document, any = references to "EID" refer
to an = LEID. to an LEID.
=
EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of = EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation = authority. EID-
Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC = addresses that make up
a "database mapping". EID-Prefix allocations can = be broken up
into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be = associated with the
larger EID-Prefix block. A globally routed = address block (whether
PI or PA) is not inherently an EID-Prefix. A = globally routed
address block MAY be used by its assignee as an = EID block. The
converse is not supported. That is, a site that = receives an
explicitly allocated EID-Prefix may not use that = EID-Prefix as a
globally routed prefix. This would require = coordination and
cooperation with the entities managing the = mapping infrastructure.
Once this has been done, that block could be = removed from the
globally routed IP system, if other suitable = transition and access
mechanisms are in place. Discussion of such = transition and access
mechanisms can be found in [RFC6832] and = [RFC7215].
End-system: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 = device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The = end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address = field of the IP
header when communicating globally (i.e., outside = of its routing
domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a = switch or router
device, or any network appliance. =
= =
Ingress Tunnel = Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router = that resides in a
LISP site. = Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the = LISP site to
= destinations outside of the site are candidates for = encapsulation destinations = outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. = The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination = address as an EID
and = performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then = and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping = lookup. The router then
prepends an = "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its = routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC = space) in the source address field and the result of the = the RLOC space) in the source address = field and the result of the
mapping = lookup in the destination address field. Note that this = mapping lookup in the destination address = field. Note that this
destination = RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy = device that has
better = knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer = to the
=
skipping to = change at = page 6, line 33 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 7, line 5 =C2=B6
end-systems = on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets end-systems on one side and sends = LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the = Internet on the other side. = toward the Internet on the other side.
=
= Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header = for Specifically, when a service = provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic = Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also = Traffic Engineering purposes, the router = that does this is also
regarded as = an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR = uses can be based
on the = outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied = on the outer destination address (the = originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or = the inner destination address (the originating host's RLOC) or the inner destination address (the = originating host's
supplied = EID). supplied EID).
=
TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a = service provider LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this = document to refer
network that prepends an additional LISP = header for Traffic to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 = header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
Engineering purposes. specific 8-octet = header that follow the UDP header and that = an ITR
prepends or an ETR strips.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a = router that accepts an IP =
packet where the destination address in = the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the = "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header = found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP = packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP = packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality = does not have to
be limited to a router = device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as = well.
TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed = in a service provider =
network that strips an outer LISP header = for Traffic Engineering
purposes.
xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when = direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. = "xTR" refers to the
router that is the = tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR = can be located at
the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR = and ETR
functionality at the CE router. =
Re-encapsulating Tunneling in RTRs: = Re-encapsulating Tunneling
occurs when an RTR = (Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router) acts like an
ETR to remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend = a new
LISP header. Doing this allows a packet to be = re-routed by the
RTR without adding the overhead of additional = tunnel headers. Any
references to tunnels in this specification refer = to dynamic
encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically = configured. When
using multiple mapping database systems, care = must be taken to not
create re-encapsulation loops through = misconfiguration.
=
LISP Router: = A LISP router is a router that performs the functions LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that = performs the functions
of any or = all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, = Proxy-ITR (PITR),
or = Proxy-ETR (PETR). or Proxy-ETR = (PETR).
=
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is = generally LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers = in an edge network that are
short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that = stores, tracks, and is = under a single technical administration. LISP = routers that reside
responsible for timing out and otherwise = validating EID-to-RLOC = in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
mappings. This cache is distinct from the full = "database" of EID- edge network from the core = network.
to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the = ITR(s), and
relatively small, while the database is = distributed, relatively
static, and much more global in = scope.
EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is = a global
distributed database that contains all known = EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains = a small piece of
the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the = EID-Prefixes
"behind" the router. These map to one of the = router's own
globally visible IP addresses. Note that there = MAY be transient
conditions when the EID-Prefix for the = site and Locator-Set for
each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. = This has no
negative implications, since a partial set of Locators = can be
used.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs = when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers = of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or = other re-routing
as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
header. Any references to tunnels in this = specification refer to
dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are = never statically
configured.
LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this = document to refer
to the = outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a = LISP-
specific 8-octet header that follow the = UDP header and that an ITR =
prepends or an ETR strips. =
=
Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term = used to describe an Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): = Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains = to LISP = header. They are used by ITRs to = inform ETRs about the up/
the data-plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI down status of all ETRs at = the local site. These bits are used as
value of 0 used in = this specification indicates an unspecified a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
encoded address where the length of the = address is 0 octets status. The LSBs can be = verified by use of one of the Locator
following the 16-bit AFI value of = 0. = reachability algorithms described in Section 10.
=
Negative = Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a = Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping = entry, also known as a
negative = cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix = negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC = entry where an EID-Prefix
is = advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set = is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. = That is, the Locator-Set
for the = EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count = for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has = an encoded Locator count
of 0. This = type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from of 0. This type of entry could be used to = describe a prefix from
a non-LISP = site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the = mapping database.
There are a = set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a There are a set of well-defined actions that are = encoded in a
Negative = Map-Reply. Negative = Map-Reply.
=
Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data = packet where Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are = an address block
the inner-header destination address equals the = outer-header assigned to a site by each service = provider to which a site
destination address used to trigger a = Map-Reply by a = decapsulating connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
ETR. In addition, the original packet is = decapsulated and provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) = [RFC4632] block and
delivered to the = destination host if the destination EID is in the = is aggregated = into the larger block before being = advertised into
EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. = Otherwise, the packet is the underlay network. Traditionally, IP = multihoming has been
discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the = mapping database implemented by each = multihomed site acquiring its own globally
designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other = visible = prefix.
cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping = database design
for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending = Map-Requests on
the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must = be advertised.
However, this is discouraged if the core = is to scale by having =
less EID-Prefixes stored in the core router's = routing tables.
=
Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. = A Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are = an address
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of = non-LISP sites that block assigned from a pool where blocks are not = associated with
send packets to destinations at LISP = sites. = any particular location in the network (e.g., from a = particular
= service = provider) and are therefore not = topologically aggregatable
= in the routing = system.
=
Proxy-ETR = (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A = Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and = described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts = like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of = LISP sites that
send = packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP = sites.
=
Route-returnability: Route-returnability is an = assumption that the Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in = [RFC6832]. A
= PITR acts like an = ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
= send packets to = destinations at LISP sites.
=
= Recursive Tunneling: = Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
= more than one = LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
= be employed to = implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
= as needed. When = this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
= is added, and the = original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
= = header.
=
= Re-Encapsulating = Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to
= remove a LISP = header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
= header. This is = known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this
= allows a packet = to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the
= overhead of = additional tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels
= in this = specification refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; = they
= are never = statically configured. When using multiple mapping
= database systems, = care must be taken to not create re-
= encapsulation = loops through misconfiguration.
=
= = Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that = the
underlying = routing system will deliver packets to the destination. = underlying routing system will deliver = packets to the destination.
When = combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and When combined with a nonce that is provided by a = sender and
returned by = a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data = insertion. A
= route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent = with route-returnability check = is verified when a message is sent with
a nonce, = another message is returned with the same nonce, and the = a nonce, another message is returned with = the same nonce, and the
destination = of the original message appears as the source of the destination of the original message appears as the = source of the
returned = message. returned = message.
=
LISP site: LISP site is a = set of routers in an edge network that are Routing Locator (RLOC): An = RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or = IPv6
under a single technical administration. LISP = routers that reside = [RFC8200] = address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). = An RLOC is
in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the the output of an = EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one
edge network from the core = network. = or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which = it
Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to = indicate = attaches to the underlay network; = where the topology is defined by
a connection initiation attempt by an EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP = the connectivity of provider networks. Multiple = RLOCs can be
site are the first to get involved in = obtaining database Map-Cache assigned to the = same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a
entries by sending Map-Request = messages. site.
=
Server-side: = Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate = Server-side: Server-side is a term used in = this document to indicate
that a = connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a that a connection initiation attempt is being = accepted for a
= destination EID. The ETR(s) at the destination = LISP site may be = destination EID.
the first to send Map-Replies to the source site = initiating the
connection. The ETR(s) at this destination site = can obtain
mappings by gleaning information from = Map-Requests, Data-Probes,
or encapsulated packets.
=
Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are = present in the TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR = that is deployed in a service = provider
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform = ETRs about the up/ network that strips an outer LISP header for = Traffic Engineering
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These = bits are used as purposes.
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path = reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one = of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section = 10.
=
Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this = document to TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an = ITR that is deployed in a service = provider
refer to the same IPv4 or = IPv6 address configured and used on network that prepends an additional LISP header = for Traffic
multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an Engineering purposes.
anycast address in each of their own address = spaces.
= xTR: An xTR is a = reference to an ITR or ETR when direction = of data
= flow is not part = of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
= router that is = the tunnel endpoint and is used = synonymously with
= the term "Tunnel = Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
= the Customer Edge = (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
= functionality at = the CE router.
=
4. Basic = Overview 4. Basic Overview
=
One key = concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they = One key concept of LISP is that end-systems = operate the same way they
do today. The = IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for = tracking sockets and
connections, = and for sending and receiving packets, do not change. connections, and for sending and receiving packets, = do not change.
In LISP = terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called = Endpoint
Identifiers = (EIDs). Identifiers (EIDs).
=
Routers = continue to forward packets based on IP destination Routers continue to forward packets based on IP = destination
=
skipping to = change at = page 10, line 38 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 10, line = 15 =C2=B6
o Other types = of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see = [RFC8060] for
further = information. further = information.
=
o LISP = routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See = o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing = Locator addresses. See
details in = Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by = "mostly".
=
o RLOCs are = always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, = preferably
= topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless = topologically oriented addresses from = provider CIDR (Classless
= Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. = Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
=
o When a = router originates packets, it may use as a = source address o When a router = originates packets, it MAY use as a source = address
either an = EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host = (e.g., when
terminating = a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), terminating a transport session such as Secure = SHell (SSH),
TELNET, = or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it may = TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
use an EID = that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that = purpose. An EID
that = identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC; = that identifies the router as a host MUST = NOT be used as an RLOC;
an EID is = only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP = an EID is only routable within the scope = of a site. A typical BGP
= configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage = where configuration might = demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
a router = could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions = a router could use its "host-like" EID to = terminate iBGP sessions
to other = routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to = to other routers in a site while at the = same time using RLOCs to
terminate = eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the = site.
=
o Packets = with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- = o Packets with EIDs in them are not = expected to be delivered end-to-
end in the = absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping = operation. They are
expected to = be used locally for intra-site communication or to be expected to be used locally for intra-site = communication or to be
= encapsulated for inter-site communication. encapsulated for inter-site communication.
=
o = EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a = manner o EID-Prefixes are likely = to be hierarchically assigned in a manner
that is = optimized for administrative convenience and to facilitate = that is optimized for administrative = convenience and to facilitate
scaling = of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. The = hierarchy is scaling of = the EID-to-RLOC mapping database.
based on an address allocation hierarchy that is = independent of
the network topology.
=
o EIDs = may also be structured (subnetted) in a = manner suitable for o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner = suitable for
local = routing within an Autonomous System (AS). local routing within an Autonomous System = (AS).
=
An additional = LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets = by a TE-ITR
when = re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential = when re-routing of the path for a packet is = desired. A potential
use-case for = this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs = to perform
Traffic = Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such = Traffic Engineering for packets flowing = through its network. In such
a situation, = termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an = a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", = an ISP transit acts as an
additional = ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new = prepended header
would be = either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic = would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP = (along an intra-ISP traffic
engineered = path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic = engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another = ISP (an inter-ISP traffic
=
skipping to = change at = page 12, line 17 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 11, line = 37 =C2=B6
was not = using LISP. was not using = LISP.
=
o Each site = is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has = an address
(RLOC) = assigned from the service provider address block for each = (RLOC) assigned from the service provider = address block for each
provider to = which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is = attached.
=
o The ITR(s) = and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to = the source and
= destination, respectively, but the source and destination can = be destination, respectively, = but the source and destination can be
located = anywhere in the LISP site. = located anywhere in the LISP site.
=
o Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database system by = using the o A Map-Request = is sent for an external destination when the
LISP control-plane protocol documented = in destination is not = found in the forwarding table or matches a
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. A Map-Request = is sent for an external default = route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping = database
= destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding = system by using = the LISP control-plane protocol documented in
table or = matches a default route. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
o Map-Replies = are sent on the underlying routing system topology o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing = system topology
using the = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol. using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane = protocol.
=
Client = host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate = with server
= host2.xyz.example.com: = host2.xyz.example.com:
=
1. = host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to = 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a = TCP connection to
= host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup = on
= host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This = host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record = is returned. This
=
skipping to = change at = page 13, line 35 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 13, line 8 =C2=B6
of the = addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to = of the addresses, strips the LISP = header, and forwards packets to
the = attached destination host. the = attached destination host.
=
9. In order = to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse 9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup = in the reverse
direction, = an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache = entry that maps
the source = EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source the source EID (inner-header source IP address) = to the source
RLOC = (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet. = RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in = a received LISP packet.
Such a = cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping and only Such a cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping = and only
contains a = single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete contains a single RLOC for the EID in question. = More complete
= information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by = sending information about = additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending
a LISP = Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR may a = LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY
also = influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC. = also influence the decision the other = makes in selecting an RLOC.
=
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details 5. LISP = Encapsulation Details
=
Since = additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes = Since additional tunnel headers are = prepended, the packet becomes
larger and can = exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed = from the ITR to
the ETR. It = is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do = not get
fragmented as = they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. = Instead, the packet
is dropped and = an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is is dropped and an ICMP = Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is
returned to = the source. returned to the = source.
=
This specification RECOMMENDS that = implementations provide support = In the case when fragmentation is needed, = this specification
for one of = the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two = RECOMMENDS that implementations provide = support for one of the
existing = schemes are detailed in Section 7. = proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two existing = schemes
= are detailed in Section 7.
=
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].
=
skipping to = change at = page 14, line 16 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 14, line 4 =C2=B6
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].
=
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 |Type of Service| = Total Length | / = |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| = Total Length |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | = | | Identification |Flags| = Fragment Offset |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to = Live | Protocol =3D 17 | Header Checksum | = OH | Time to Live | Protocol =3D 17 | = Header Checksum |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Source Routing Locator | | | Source Routing Locator = |
\ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = Destination Routing Locator | \ | Destination Routing Locator = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | = Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 | = / | Source Port =3D xxxx | = Dest Port =3D 4341 |
UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP = Checksum |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L = |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| = Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | = Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits = |
P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ = |Version| IHL |Type of Service| = Total Length | / = |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| = Total Length |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | = | | Identification |Flags| = Fragment Offset |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to = Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header = Checksum |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Source EID | | | Source EID = |
\ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = Destination EID | \ | Destination EID = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
=
IHL =3D = IP-Header-Length IHL =3D = IP-Header-Length
=
5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format 5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 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| Traffic Class | Flow = Label | / = |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow = Label |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Payload Length | Next Header=3D17| Hop Limit | = | | Payload Length | Next = Header=3D17| Hop Limit |
v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = | | = |
O + = + O + = +
u | = | u | = |
t + = Source Routing Locator + t + Source Routing Locator = +
e | = | e | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
=
skipping to = change at = page 15, line 38 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 15, line = 23 =C2=B6
\ | = | \ | = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | = Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 | = / | Source Port =3D xxxx | = Dest Port =3D 4341 |
UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP = Checksum |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L = |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| = Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | = Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits = |
P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ = |Version| Traffic Class | Flow = Label | / = |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow = Label |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | = Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | = / | Payload Length | Next = Header | Hop Limit |
v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = | | = |
I + = + I + = +
n | = | n | = |
n + = Source EID + n + Source EID = +
e | = | e | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
=
skipping to = change at = page 16, line 4 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 15, line = 38 =C2=B6
I + = + I + = +
n | = | n | = |
n + = Source EID + n + Source EID = +
e | = | e | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
H = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= H = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | = | d | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
=
^ + = Destination EID + ^ + Destination EID = +
\ | = | \ | = |
\ + = + \ + = +
\ | = | \ | = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
=
5.3. Tunnel = Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel = Header Field Descriptions
=
Inner Header = (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram Inner Header (IH): The inner header is = the header on the
received = from the originating host. The source and = destination IP datagram = received from the originating host [RFC0791] = [RFC8200]
addresses = are EIDs [RFC0791] [RFC8200]. = [RFC2474]. = The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.
=
Outer Header: = (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header = prepended by an
ITR. The = address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained = from the ingress
router's = EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" = router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP = protocol number is "UDP (17)"
from = [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment = (DF) bit
'Flags' = field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in = Sections 7.1 and
= 7.2. 7.2.
=
UDP Header: = The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when = UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR = selected source port when
= encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash = encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 = for details on the hash
algorithm = used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the = algorithm used to select a source port = based on the 5-tuple of the
inner = header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known = inner header. The destination port MUST = be set to the well-known
= IANA-assigned port value 4341. = IANA-assigned port value 4341.
=
UDP Checksum: = The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be = transmitted as zero
by an ITR = for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 = encapsulation by an ITR for = either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 = encapsulation
[RFC6935] = [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is [RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero = UDP checksum is
received by = an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet = for
= decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the = UDP decapsulation. When an ITR = transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
checksum, = it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field. checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value = in this field.
When an ETR = receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP = checksum, it MAY
choose to = verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform choose to verify the checksum value. If it = chooses to perform
such = verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be = such verification, and the verification = fails, the packet MUST be
silently = dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to = perform the
= verification, or performs the verification successfully, the = verification, or performs the = verification successfully, the
packet MUST = be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The = handling of UDP
=
skipping = to change at page 19, line = 43 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 19, line = 27 =C2=B6
Copying the = Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: = first, it
preserves the = distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet = to travel;
second, and = more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping = second, and more importantly, it provides = for suppression of looping
packets in the = event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated = tunnels due to
= misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling = for misconfiguration. See Section = 18.3 for TTL exception handling for
traceroute = packets. traceroute = packets.
=
The Explicit = Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field = occupies bits 6
and 7 of both = the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and = the IPv6 'Traffic
Class' field = [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires = special treatment
in order to = avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. in order to avoid discarding indications of = congestion [RFC3168]. An
ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' = field from the inner ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit = 'ECN' field from the inner
header to the = outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST = copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field = from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. = 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header = to the new outer header.
If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication = codepoint (the
value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR value = is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/
= decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped = outer = PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the = stripped
header to = the surviving inner header that is used to forward the outer header to the surviving inner header that is = used to forward
packet = beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications = the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE
when a = packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes = indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and
marked with = a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the
= endpoints. tunnel = endpoints.
=
6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache 6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
=
ITRs and PITRs = maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred = as LISP EID-to-
RLOC = Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator = RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from = EID-prefixes to locator
sets. The = cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to = sets. The cache is used to encapsulate = packets from the EID space to
the = corresponding RLOC network attachment point. the corresponding RLOC network attachment = point.
=
When an = ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to = When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from = inside of the LISP site to
destinations = outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the = destinations outside of the site a = longest-prefix match lookup of the
=
skipping = to change at page 20, line = 40 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 20, line = 27 =C2=B6
information = about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP = reachability
information = mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see information mechanisms to determine the reachability = of RLOCs, see
Section 10 for = the specific mechanisms. Section 10 = for the specific mechanisms.
=
7. Dealing with = Large Encapsulated Packets 7. Dealing = with Large Encapsulated Packets
=
This section = proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed = This section proposes two mechanisms to deal = with packets that exceed
the path MTU = between the ITR and ETR. the path = MTU between the ITR and ETR.
=
It is left to = the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful It is left to the implementor to decide if the = stateless or stateful
mechanism = should be implemented. Both or neither = can be used, since mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be = used, since
it is a local = decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to = deal with MTU
issues, and = sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. issues, and sites can interoperate with differing = mechanisms.
=
Both stateless = and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to = Re-encapsulating
and Recursive = Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below = referring to an ITR
also apply to = a TE-ITR. also apply to a = TE-ITR.
=
7.1. A Stateless = Solution to MTU Handling 7.1. A = Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
=
An ITR = stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as = An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU = issues is described as
=
skipping = to change at page 21, line = 19 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 20, line = 49 =C2=B6
=
1. Define H = to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer = header an ITR
prepends = to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and = LISP header
= lengths. lengths.
=
2. Define L = to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the = maximum-sized packet
an ITR can = send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for = the ITR or any
= intermediate routers to fragment the packet. intermediate routers to fragment the = packet.
=
3. Define an = architectural constant S for the maximum size of a 3. Define an architectural constant S for the = maximum size of a
packet, = in octets, an ITR must receive from the = source so the packet, in = octets, an ITR MUST receive from the = source so the
effective = MTU can be met. That is, L =3D S + H. = effective MTU can be met. That is, L =3D S + H.
=
When an ITR = receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H = When an ITR receives a packet from a = site-facing interface and adds H
octets worth = of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size = greater than L
octets = (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets = octets (meaning the received packet size was = greater than S octets
from the = source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the = from the source), it resolves the MTU issue = by first splitting the
original = packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then = original packet into 2 equal-sized = fragments. A LISP header is then
prepended to = each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments prepended to each fragment. The size of the = encapsulated fragments
is then (S/2 + = H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's = estimate of the path
MTU between = the ITR and its correspondent ETR. = MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.
=
skipping = to change at page 23, line = 14 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 22, line = 43 =C2=B6
=
When an ETR = decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID = from the LISP
header is used = as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table header is used as a table identifier to locate the = forwarding table
to use for the = inner destination EID lookup. to = use for the inner destination EID lookup.
=
For example, = an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a = For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN = identifier could be used as a
24-bit = Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case = 24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] = for LISP VPN use-case
= details. details.
=
The Instance = ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT = The Instance ID that is stored in the = mapping database when LISP-DDT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used is 32 bits in = length. That means the [RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That = means the control-plane
= control-plane can store more instances than a given data-plane = can can store more instances than = a given data-plane can use. Multiple
use. = Multiple data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as = data-planes can use the same 32-bit space = as long as the low-order 24
the = low-order 24 bits don't overlap among xTRs. bits don't overlap among xTRs.
=
9. Routing = Locator Selection 9. Routing Locator = Selection
=
Both the = client-side and server-side may need = control over the Both the = client-side and server-side MAY need = control over the
selection of = RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is selection of RLOCs for conversations between them. = This control is
achieved by = manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID- = achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and = 'Weight' fields in EID-
to-RLOC = Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be = to-RLOC Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, = RLOC information MAY be
gleaned from = received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC = Map-Request
= messages. messages.
=
The following = are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the The following are different scenarios for choosing = RLOCs and the
controls that = are available: controls that are = available:
=
o The = server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use = o The server-side returns one RLOC. The = client-side can only use
=
skipping = to change at page 24, line = 48 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 24, line = 34 =C2=B6
stored in the = mapping database system provides reachability stored in the mapping database system provides = reachability
information = for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not = part of the
mapping system = and is determined using one or more of the Routing mapping system and is determined using one or more of = the Routing
Locator = reachability algorithms described in the next section. Locator reachability algorithms described in the next = section.
=
10. Routing = Locator Reachability 10. Routing = Locator Reachability
=
Several = mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently = Several mechanisms for determining RLOC = reachability are currently
= defined: defined:
=
1. An ETR = may examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the = LISP header of 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP = header of
an = encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is = an encapsulated data packet received = from an ITR. If the ETR is
also = acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original = also acting as an ITR and has traffic to = return to the original
ITR site, = it can use this status information to help select an ITR site, it can use this status information to = help select an
= RLOC. RLOC.
=
2. An ITR = may receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or = Host 2. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or = Host
= Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates = that Unreachable message for an = RLOC it is using. This indicates that
the RLOC = is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP = messages may
not be = desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them = completely.
= Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices = Implementations are encouraged to follow = current best practices
in = treating these conditions. in = treating these conditions.
=
3. An ITR = that participates in the global routing system can 3. An ITR that participates in the global routing = system can
determine = that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base = determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP = Routing Information Base
(RIB) = route exists that matches the RLOC IP address. (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP = address.
=
4. An ITR = may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable = message from a 4. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message = from a
= destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use = destination host. This occurs if an ITR = attempts to use
= interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a = interworking [RFC6832] and = LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
= non-LISP-capable site. = non-LISP-capable site.
=
5. An ITR = may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in = response to a 5. An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response = to a
previously = sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of = the Map-Reply is
likely up, = since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the likely up, since the ETR was able to send the = Map-Reply to the
= ITR. ITR.
=
6. When an = ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from = an ITR, the
source = RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. source RLOC from the outer header of the packet = is likely up.
=
7. An ITR/ETR = pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability = algorithms
described = in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing. described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or = RLOC-Probing.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 26, line = 17 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 26, line = 6 =C2=B6
=
When an ETR = decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for = any change in
the = 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the = the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit = goes from 1 to 0, the
ETR, if acting = also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from = encapsulating
packets to an = RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It = will only resume
using that = RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a = using that RLOC if the corresponding = Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
value of 1. = Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with = a Locator-Set
per = EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the = per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator = becomes unreachable, the
= Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in = the Locator-Status-Bit that = corresponds to that Locator's position in the
list returned = by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to = zero for that
particular = EID-Prefix. particular EID-Prefix. = Refer to Section 19 for security = related
= issues regarding = Locator-Status-Bits.
=
When ITRs at = the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, = the IGP can
still be used = to determine the reachability of Locators, provided still be used to determine the reachability of = Locators, provided
they are = injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 = they are injected into the IGP. This is = typically done when a /32
address is = configured on a loopback interface. = address is configured on a loopback interface.
=
When ITRs = receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host = Unreachable
messages as a = method to determine unreachability, they will refrain messages as a method to determine unreachability, = they will refrain
from using = Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map- from using Locators that are described in Locator = lists of Map-
Replies. = However, using this approach is unreliable because many = Replies. However, using this approach is = unreliable because many
=
skipping = to change at page 27, line = 45 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 27, line = 36 =C2=B6
E-bit cleared. = The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and = knows that the
path to and = from the ETR is up. path to and = from the ETR is up.
=
The ITR will = set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while = The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for = every packet it sends while
in the = echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process = in the echo-nonce-request state. The time = the ITR waits to process
the echoed = nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is the echoed nonce before it determines the path is = unreachable is
variable and = is a choice left for the implementation. variable and is a choice left for the = implementation.
=
If the ITR is = receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does = not see the
nonce echoed = while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request = state, then the
path to the = ETR is unreachable. This decision may be = overridden by path to the ETR is = unreachable. This decision MAY be = overridden by
other Locator = reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR = determines that
the path to = the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another = Locator for
that = EID-Prefix. that = EID-Prefix.
=
Note that = "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST = Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms = here. Both devices MUST
be = implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce = be implementing both ITR and ETR = functionality for the echo nonce
mechanism to = operate. mechanism to = operate.
=
The ITR and = ETR may both go into the = echo-nonce-request state at the = The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the = echo-nonce-request state at the
same time. = The number of packets sent or the time during which echo = same time. The number of packets sent or = the time during which echo
nonce requests = are sent is an implementation-specific setting. nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific = setting.
However, when = an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request = state, it can echo
the ETR's = nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and = the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets = that it encapsulates and
subsequently = continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request = packets.
=
This mechanism = does not completely solve the forward path This mechanism does not completely solve the forward = path
reachability = problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the = reachability problem, as traffic may be = unidirectional. That is, the
ETR = receiving traffic at a site may not be the = same device as an ITR ETR = receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the = same device as an ITR
that transmits = traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is that transmits traffic from that site, or the = site-to-site traffic is
unidirectional = so there is no ITR returning traffic. = unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.
=
The echo-nonce = algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if = one side sets the
E-bit and the = other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the E-bit and the other side is not enabled for = echo-noncing, then the
echoing of the = nonce does not occur and the requesting side may echoing of the nonce does not occur and the = requesting side may
erroneously = consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set = erroneously consider the Locator = unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set
the E-bit in = an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it = knows the ETR is
enabled for = echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC- = enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed = by the E-bit in the RLOC-
probe = Map-Reply message. probe Map-Reply = message.
=
Note that other Locator reachability mechanisms are= being researched Note = other Locator Reachability mechanisms can = be used to compliment
and can be used to compliment or even = override the echo nonce or even = override the echo nonce algorithm. See the next section for
algorithm. = See the next section for an example of control-plane an example of control-plane probing.
= probing.
=
10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm 10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm
=
RLOC-Probing = is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the = RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR = can use to determine the
reachability = status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a reachability status of one or more Locators that it = has cached in a
Map-Cache = entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request = and Map-Reply
messages is = used for RLOC-Probing. messages is = used for RLOC-Probing.
=
RLOC-Probing = is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an = RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on = a timer basis, where an
ITR or PITR = will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to = a locator
address from = one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as = address from one of its own locator = addresses. A Map-Request used as
an RLOC-probe = is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a = Map-Server or to
the mapping = database system as one would when soliciting mapping the mapping database system as one would when = soliciting mapping
data. The EID = record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is = the EID-Prefix of
the = Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR may include a = the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR MAY include a
mapping data = record for its own database mapping information that mapping data record for its own database mapping = information that
contains the = local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes = contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs = for its site. RLOC-probes
are sent = periodically using a jittered timer interval. are sent periodically using a jittered timer = interval.
=
When an ETR = receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it = When an ETR receives a Map-Request message = with the probe-bit set, it
returns a = Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of = returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. = The source address of
the Map-Reply = is set according to the procedure described in the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure = described in
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain = mapping [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. = The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping
data for the = EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides = data for the EID-Prefix contained in the = Map-Request. This provides
the = opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get = the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that = sent the RLOC-probe to get
=
skipping = to change at page 29, line = 27 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 29, line = 14 =C2=B6
reachable or = has become unreachable, thus providing a robust reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a = robust
mechanism for = switching to using another Locator from the cached mechanism for switching to using another Locator from = the cached
Locator. = RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT) = Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide = rough Round-Trip Time (RTT)
estimates = between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network = estimates between a pair of Locators, which = can be useful for network
management = purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The = management purposes as well as for selecting = low delay paths. The
major = disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control = major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the = number of control
messages = required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those = messages required and the amount of = bandwidth used to obtain those
benefits, = especially if the requirement for failure detection times = benefits, especially if the requirement for = failure detection times
is very = small. is very small.
=
Continued research and testing will attempt to = characterize the
tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message = overhead.
= =
11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site 11. = EID Reachability within a LISP Site
=
A site may be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The = hosts and A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The = hosts and
infrastructure = within a site will be addressed using one or more EID- infrastructure within a site will be addressed using = one or more EID-
Prefixes that = are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant = ETRs in the
mapping = system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose = mapping system. One possible failure mode = is for an ETR to lose
reachability = to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site. = reachability to one or more of the = EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this = occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the = When this occurs when the ETR sends = Map-Replies, it can clear the
R-bit = associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an = R-bit associated with its own Locator. And = when the ETR is also an
ITR, it can = clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the = encapsulation data
= header. header.
=
It is = recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site = It is recognized that there are no simple = solutions to the site
partitioning = problem because it is hard to know which part of the partitioning problem because it is hard to know which = part of the
EID-Prefix = range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub- = EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which = Locators can reach any sub-
ranges of = the EID-Prefixes. This problem is under = investigation with ranges = of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem
the expectation that experiments will tell us = more. Note that this = introduced by the LISP architecture. The problem exists today when = a
is not a new = problem introduced by the LISP architecture. The multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its = reachability upstream.
problem = exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its =
reachability = upstream.
=
12. Routing = Locator Hashing 12. Routing Locator = Hashing
=
When an ETR = provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to When an = ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message
a requesting = ITR, the Locator-Set for the EID-Prefix may = contain that = is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR, the = Locator-Set
different = Priority values for each locator address. When more than = for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values
one best = Priority Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load- for = each locator address. When more than one best Priority Locator
share traffic against the corresponding = Locators. exists, the ITR can = decide how to load-share traffic against = the
= corresponding Locators.
=
The = following hash algorithm may be used by an = ITR to select a The following hash = algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select = a
Locator for a = packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping: Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the = EID-to-RLOC mapping:
=
1. Either a = source and destination address hash or the traditional 1. Either a source and destination address hash or = the traditional
5-tuple = hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash includes = 5-tuple hash can be used. The = traditional 5-tuple hash includes
the source = and destination addresses; source and destination TCP, the source and destination addresses; source and = destination TCP,
UDP, or = Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers; = UDP, or Stream Control Transmission = Protocol (SCTP) port numbers;
and the IP = protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 = next-protocol fields of
a packet = that a host originates from within a LISP site. When a = a packet that a host originates from = within a LISP site. When a
packet is = not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the = source and
= destination addresses only from the header are used to compute = destination addresses only from the = header are used to compute
=
skipping = to change at page 34, line = 6 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 33, line = 30 =C2=B6
Replies. To = avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a = third party, a
sender of an = SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. = If an ITR
receives an = SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is = not in the
Locator-Set = for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map- = Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, = then the responding Map-
Request MUST = be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database = Request MUST be sent with an EID destination = to the mapping database
system. Since = the mapping database system is a more secure way to system. Since the mapping database system is a more = secure way to
reach an = authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the = reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver = the Map-Request to the
authoritative = source of the mapping data. = authoritative source of the mapping data.
=
When an ITR = receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not = When an ITR receives an SMR-based = Map-Request for which it does not
have a = cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it MAY not send = have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send
an SMR-invoked = Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur = when an ETR
sends SMR = messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored = sends SMR messages to all Locators in the = Locator-Set it has stored
in its = map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be = in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that = receive the SMR may not be
sending = packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs = sending packets to the site. There is no = point in updating the ITRs
until they = need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to = until they need to send, in which case they = will send Map-Requests to
obtain a = Map-Cache entry. obtain a Map-Cache = entry.
=
13.3. Database = Map-Versioning 13.3. Database = Map-Versioning
=
When there is = unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and When there is unidirectional packet flow between an = ITR and ETR, and
=
skipping = to change at page 35, line = 52 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 35, line = 26 =C2=B6
few = implementation techniques can be used to incrementally = implement few implementation = techniques can be used to incrementally implement
LISP: = LISP:
=
o When a = tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer = o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is = received by an ETR, the outer
destination = address may not be the address of the router. This destination address may not be the address of the = router. This
makes it = challenging for the control plane to get packets from the = makes it challenging for the control = plane to get packets from the
hardware. = This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding hardware. This may be mitigated by creating = special Forwarding
Information = Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served Information Base (FIB) entries for the = EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
by the ETR = (those for which the router provides an RLOC by the ETR (those for which the router provides an = RLOC
= translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag = indicating translation). These = FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
that = control-plane processing should be = performed. The forwarding that = control-plane processing SHOULD be = performed. The forwarding
logic of = testing for particular IP protocol number values is not = logic of testing for particular IP = protocol number values is not
necessary. = There are a few proven cases where no changes to necessary. There are a few proven cases where no = changes to
existing = deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data- = existing deployed hardware were needed to = support the LISP data-
= plane. plane.
=
o On an ITR, = prepending a new IP header consists of adding more o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of = adding more
octets to a = MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the = string as part
of the = outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support = of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. = Routers that support
Generic = Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 = Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) = tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
tunneling = [RFC3056] may already support this action. tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this = action.
=
skipping = to change at page 38, line = 15 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 37, line = 40 =C2=B6
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods 17. = LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods
=
This section = will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs = can be placed
in the network = and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario. in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of = each scenario.
For a more = detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer = For a more detailed networkd design = deployment recommendation, refer
to = [RFC7215]. to [RFC7215].
=
There are two = basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: = centralized
versus = distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating = versus distributed caches; and flat, = Recursive, or Re-encapsulating
Tunneling. = When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, = Tunneling. When deciding on centralized = versus distributed caching,
the = following issues should be = considered: the following issues = SHOULD be considered:
=
o Are the = xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all = o Are the xTRs spread out so that the = caches are spread across all
the = memories of each router? A centralized cache is when an ITR = the memories of each router? A = centralized cache is when an ITR
keeps a = cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. The packet = keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is = encapsulating to. The packet
takes a = direct path to the destination Locator. A distributed takes a direct path to the destination Locator. A = distributed
cache is = when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel = cache is when an ITR needs help from = other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel
Routers = (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries for = Routers (RTRs) because it does not store = all the cache entries for
the EIDs it = is encapsulating to. So, the packet takes a path the EIDs it is encapsulating to. So, the packet = takes a path
through = RTRs that have a different set of cache entries. through RTRs that have a different set of cache = entries.
=
o Should = management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a = o Should management "touch points" be = minimized by only choosing a
few xTRs, = just enough for redundancy? few = xTRs, just enough for redundancy?
=
o In general, = using more ITRs doesn't increase management load, o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase = management load,
since = caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand, = since caches are built and stored = dynamically. On the other hand,
using more = ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to- = using more ETRs does require more = management, since EID-Prefix-to-
RLOC = mappings need to be explicitly configured. RLOC mappings need to be explicitly = configured.
=
When deciding = on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, the When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating = Tunneling, the
following = issues should be considered: = following issues SHOULD be considered:
=
o Flat = tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between the = o Flat tunneling implements a single = encapsulation path between the
source site = and destination site. This generally offers better source site and destination site. This generally = offers better
paths = between sources and destinations with a single encapsulation = paths between sources and destinations = with a single encapsulation
= path. path.
=
o Recursive = Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again further = o Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated = traffic is again further
= encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to = encapsulated in another tunnel, either to = implement VPNs or to
perform = Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the = perform Traffic Engineering. When doing = VPN-based tunneling, the
site has = some control, since the site is prepending a new site has some control, since the site is = prepending a new
= encapsulation header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the = site encapsulation header. In = the case of TE-based tunneling, the site
may have control if it is prepending a new = tunnel header, but if MAY have control if it is prepending a new = tunnel header, but if
the site's = ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has = no control.
Recursive = Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but = Recursive Tunneling generally will result = in suboptimal paths but
with the = benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that = with the benefit of steering traffic to = parts of the network that
have more = resources available. have more = resources available.
=
o The = technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only = o The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures = that packets only
require one = encapsulation header. So, if a packet needs to be re- require one encapsulation header. So, if a packet = needs to be re-
routed, it = is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re- routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and = then Re-
= Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC. = Encapsulated with a new encapsulation = header using a new RLOC.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 41, line = 12 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 40, line = 36 =C2=B6
addresses MUST = be used only in the outer IP header so the NAT device addresses MUST be used only in the outer IP header so = the NAT device
can translate = properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST be translated can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses = MUST be translated
before = encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs are not in use. = before encapsulation is performed when LISP = VPNs are not in use.
Both NAT = translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co- = Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation = functions could be co-
located in the = same device. located in the same = device.
=
17.5. Packets = Egressing a LISP Site 17.5. Packets = Egressing a LISP Site
=
When a LISP = site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one = When a LISP site is using two ITRs for = redundancy, the failure of one
ITR will = likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second = ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to = the second. This second
ITR's cache = may not be populated with the same = EID-to-RLOC mapping ITR's cache = MAY not be populated with the same = EID-to-RLOC mapping
entries as the = first. If this second ITR does not have these entries as the first. If this second ITR does not = have these
mappings, = traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved = mappings, traffic will be dropped while the = mappings are retrieved
from the = mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may from the mapping system. The retrieval of these = messages may
increase the = load of requests being sent into the mapping system. increase the load of requests being sent into the = mapping system.
=
18. Traceroute = Considerations 18. Traceroute = Considerations
=
When a source = host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a When a source host in a LISP site initiates a = traceroute to a
destination = host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it = destination host in another LISP site, it is = highly desirable for it
to see the = entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR = to see the entire path. Since packets are = encapsulated from the ITR
=
skipping = to change at page 44, line = 16 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 43, line = 42 =C2=B6
=
Map-Versioning = is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to = signal a peering xTR
that a local = EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so = that the
peering xTR = uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a = peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane = signaling message to retrieve a
fresh mapping. = This can be used by an attacker to forge the map- fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to = forge the map-
versioning = field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive = versioning field of a LISP encapsulated = header and force an excessive
amount of = signaling between xTRs that may overload them. amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload = them.
=
Most of the = attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment = Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated = with careful deployment
and = configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as = LSB and configuration, information = learned opportunistically (such as LSB
or gleaning) = should be verified with other reachability = mechanisms. or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability = mechanisms.
In addition, = systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective = In addition, systematic rate-limitation and = filtering is an effective
technique to = mitigate attacks that aim to overload the control-plane. = technique to mitigate attacks that aim to = overload the control-plane.
=
20. Network = Management Considerations 20. Network = Management Considerations
=
Considerations = for network management tools exist so the LISP Considerations for network management tools exist so = the LISP
protocol suite = can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be protocol suite can be operationally managed. These = mechanisms can be
found in = [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. found in = [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
=
21. IANA = Considerations 21. 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 [RFC5226]. = data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
=
21.1. LISP UDP = Port Numbers 21.1. LISP UDP Port = Numbers
=
The IANA = registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for = The IANA registry has allocated UDP port = numbers 4341 and 4342 for
lisp-data and = lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has updated = lisp-data and lisp-control operation, = respectively. IANA has updated
the = description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as = follows:
=
lisp-data = 4341 udp LISP Data Packets = lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
= lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control = Packets
=
22. = References 22. References
=
22.1. Normative = References 22.1. Normative = References
=
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, = A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", = draft-ietf-lisp-
ddt-09 (work in progress), January = 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] =
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An = Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation = Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 = (work in
progress), April 2015. =
= =
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
= Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. = Cabellos-Aparicio,
= "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) = Control-Plane",
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 (work in progress), = October = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), = December
= 2017. 2017.
=
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., = Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", = draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
(work in progress), October = 2017.
= =
[RFC0768] = Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD = 6, RFC 768,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, = DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
=
[RFC0791] = Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, = RFC 791,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, = DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
=
[RFC1918] = Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., = [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., = Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and = E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for = Private Internets",
BCP = 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, = February 1996,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
=
[RFC2119] = Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to = Indicate
= Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, = Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, = DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
=
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within [RFC2474] Nichols, K., = Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. = Black,
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI = 10.17487/RFC2404, November = = "Definition of the Differentiated Services = Field (DS
= 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>. = Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 = Headers", RFC 2474,
= DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
=
[RFC3168] = Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition = [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and = D. Black, "The Addition
of = Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) = to IP",
RFC = 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September = 2001,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
=
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC = 1700 is Replaced
by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI = 10.17487/RFC3232,
January 2002, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>. =
= =
[RFC4086] = Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. = Crocker,
= "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, = "Randomness Requirements for = Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, = DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
=
[RFC4632] = Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless = Inter-domain Routing
= (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation = (CIDR): The Internet Address = Assignment and Aggregation
= Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI = 10.17487/RFC4632, August
= 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>. 2006, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
=
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using = HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC = 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May = 2007,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. =
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines = for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC = 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May = 2008,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. =
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, = "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC = 5496,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March = 2009,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5496>. =
= =
[RFC5944] = Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", = [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility = Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC = 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November = 2010,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.
=
[RFC6115] Li, T., Ed., "Recommendation for a Routing = Architecture",
RFC 6115, DOI 10.17487/RFC6115, February = 2011,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6115>. =
= =
[RFC6275] = Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. = Arkko, "Mobility
= Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI = 10.17487/RFC6275, July
= 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. 2011, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
=
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, = "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) = Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January = 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>. =
[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, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>. =
[RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, = "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC = 7052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October = 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>. =
[RFC7214] Andersson, L. and C. Pignataro, "Moving = Generic Associated
Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New = Registry",
RFC 7214, DOI 10.17487/RFC7214, May = 2014,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7214>. =
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, = F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, = "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element = Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI = 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>. =
= =
[RFC7833] = Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A [RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. = Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A
= RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name = Identifier
= Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security Format, and Confirmation Methods for the = Security
= Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833, Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC = 7833,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016, = DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>.
=
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, = B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines = for
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat = Analysis", RFC 7835, = Writing = an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
= DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, = RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126,= June 2017,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID = Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC = 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February = 2017,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
=
[RFC8200] = Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 = [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, = "Internet Protocol, Version 6
= (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC = 8200,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, = DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
=
22.2. = Informative References 22.2. = Informative References
=
[AFN] = IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August = 2016,
= <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>. = = <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
=
[CHIAPPA] = Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", = [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and = Endpoint names: A Proposed",
= 1999, 1999,
= <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>. = = <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
= Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, = Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, = V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., = and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID = Mobility Using a
= Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-00 = Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01
= (work in progress), May 2017. = (work in progress), November 2017.
= =
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
= = Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
= = Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
= (LISP)", = draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
= = progress), April 2015.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
= Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP = Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, = D., and C. White, "LISP
= Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress), = Mobile Node", = draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress),
= October 2017. October = 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
= Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP = Predictive
= RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00 = (work in RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work = in
= progress), June 2017. progress), November = 2017.
=
= = [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
= Maino, = F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
= Saucez, = "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
= (work in = progress), October 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
= Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", = Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, = "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
= draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06 = (work in draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work = in
= progress), August 2017. progress), November 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
= Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual = Private
= Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-00 = (work in Networks = (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work = in
= progress), May 2017. progress), November 2017.
=
= [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] = [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]
= Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural = Implications of
= Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 = Locator/ID Separation", = draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01
= (work in progress), January 2009. = (work in progress), January 2009.
=
[LISA96] = Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin, [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. = Coffin,
= "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix = Tenth System
= Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996. Administration Conference (LISA 96), = October 1996.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 49, line = 9 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 47, line = 22 =C2=B6
=
[RFC2784] = Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, = D., and P.
= Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, = Traina, "Generic Routing = Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, = DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
=
[RFC3056] = Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains = [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, = "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via = IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI = 10.17487/RFC3056, February
= 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>. 2001, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
=
= [RFC3232] Reynolds, = J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
= by an = On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
= January = 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.
= =
[RFC3261] = Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, = [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., = Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., = Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., = and E.
= Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, = Schooler, "SIP: Session = Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, = DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
=
[RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for = Cryptographic
Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, DOI = 10.17487/RFC4107,
June 2005, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4107>. =
= =
[RFC4192] = Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, = "Procedures for
= Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, = Renumbering an IPv6 Network = without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005, = DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.
=
[RFC4866] = Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route [RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, = "Enhanced Route
= Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC = 4866,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007, = DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4866>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4866>.
=
[RFC4984] = Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report = [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., = and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
= from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", from the IAB Workshop on Routing and = Addressing",
RFC = 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September = 2007,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
=
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure = to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI = 10.17487/RFC6480,
February 2012, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>. =
[RFC6518] Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and = Authentication for
Routing Protocols (KARP) Design = Guidelines", RFC 6518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6518, February = 2012,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6518>. =
= =
[RFC6831] = Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The = [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., = Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
= Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for = Multicast
= Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January Environments", RFC 6831, DOI = 10.17487/RFC6831, January
= 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>. 2013, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
=
[RFC6832] = Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and = V. Fuller,
= "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID = Separation Protocol
= (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, = (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, = DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
=
= [RFC6834] Iannone, = L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
= = Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
= =
[RFC6835] = Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The = Locator/ID Separation
= Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC = 6835,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013, = DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
=
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID = (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC = 6837,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January = 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>. =
= =
[RFC6935] = Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and = [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. = Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP = Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC = 6935,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, = DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
=
[RFC6936] = Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement = [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, = "Applicability Statement
for = the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with = Zero Checksums",
RFC = 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, = RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
=
= [RFC7052] Schudel, = G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
= = Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.
=
= [RFC7215] Jakab, = L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
= Pascual, = J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
= Protocol = (LISP) Network Element Deployment
= = Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
= 2014, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
=
= [RFC7835] Saucez, = D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
= = Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
= =
[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
= (LISP) = Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
=
= [RFC8111] Fuller, = V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
= Smirnov, = "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
= Database = Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
= May 2017, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
= =
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments Appendix A. = Acknowledgments
=
An initial = thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the = An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for = planting the seeds for the
initial ideas = for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues = to provide value
to the LISP = authors. to the LISP = authors.
=
A special and = appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel = Chiappa for
providing = architectural impetus over the past decades on separation = providing architectural impetus over the = past decades on separation
of location = and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews = of the LISP
architecture = and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a = architecture and documents, coupled with = enthusiasm for making LISP a
=
skipping = to change at page 52, line = 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 51, line = 5 =C2=B6
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-06 = B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
=
= o Posted January = 2018.
=
= o Remove references = to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
=
= o Document scanned = to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
=
= o Made changes to = reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
= = Iannone.
=
= o Ran IDNITs on the = document.
=
= B.2. 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.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.3. 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 52, line = 35 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 51, line = 48 =C2=B6
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.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.4. 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.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.5. 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.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.6. 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.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.7. 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.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.8. 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.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
=
o Posted = December 2016. o Posted December = 2016.
=
o Created = working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from = draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 = individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other = changes made.
=
Authors' = Addresses Authors' Addresses
=
Dino = Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman = Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA = 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA = USA
=
EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com
= =
Vince = Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman = Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA = 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA = USA
=
EMail: = vince.fuller@gmail.com EMail: = vince.fuller@gmail.com
=
Dave = Meyer Dave Meyer
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 108 change = blocks. 
396 lines changed or = deleted 340 lines changed or = added

This = html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available = from http://tools.ietf.org/to= ols/rfcdiff/
=20 =20 = --Apple-Mail=_E476F244-D6BA-4A81-BC6E-81D7E56CFBEE-- From nobody Fri Jan 5 04:22:06 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF56D12422F; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 04:22:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: lisp-chairs@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, luigi.iannone@telecom-paristech.fr X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151515492386.14779.9888299447170399416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 04:22:03 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] lisp - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 101 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:22:04 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Luigi Iannone, a Chair of the lisp working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Locator/ID Separation Protocol Area Name: Routing Area Session Requester: Luigi Iannone Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: rtgwg nvo3 i2rs sidr grow sfc nfvrg pim intarea ospf Second Priority: mboned icnrg irtfopen idr spring bier maprg Third Priority: l2tpext bess People who must be present: Joel M. Halpern Wassim Haddad Deborah Brungard Luigi Iannone Padma Pillay-Esnault Resources Requested: Special Requests: --------------------------------------------------------- From nobody Mon Jan 8 09:16:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D8312420B for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9smzGK-g8sRK for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:16:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x22b.google.com (mail-wr0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22b]) (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 9CBDE1241F5 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 09:16:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id n9so1645335wrg.2 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:16:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QdIz6xliUoTc+dXb9l3Vr0OATYgXEZ5WkGmbggEUg9s=; b=ntK9b16/y+w8baoiejtHuD5j4Dzd3g1YynJ4HDz+RCwwBf5r65fpE91x+qkNo3M+aZ bWANaWt83OxcUGlhyQHrt3vXFOZnphqrGJ4p0vcshsAmzAhqSnvXlE52ALIp+ZJmDuFw SwwFTCcEeVX/fEtXBqA2lJ9rz3eK6ZmNzPvLQpxJrX/xAE7+KHT3faUUdB1uiGhNbV+v HRd0AlKmi76RvvP5hjGTdlnGVa8LIv5J0U6Hw+eqro7srR1+XssXrkIlAcYx/tzAkp/q sCCPd0ejfLg6SNi7P7/aZsdOWxcTsONhVvv+3nyf5Iexhnl6eRxoJBX044lBFf5F8aSy DlIQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QdIz6xliUoTc+dXb9l3Vr0OATYgXEZ5WkGmbggEUg9s=; b=REIYMyPbcUVzIYZhmNrFDeI4i4lAXGp63NoO2VvBEjPgw4nYGzADQ9YeUoZdhPYikH NWwylv9f9YnltRGImvZ+gaE/XI3DGFschEj5K4mc9oJtRtNbZEPBrZFm5ou/e0WO46OA GT2WQf2LTaaPLoXg1Au91qYljKDqhKDVa/V6g5C0Z36JJ8s3ARCAsYnhcT9dbFI1EBg3 8XsKjC+PmNQ8dKhL8uWCvmCGUP95nouuXv56Wj1NA55cDM1EF1FYsbV/UglDoVk6torM wF1ovj9EERRLtrtpv5qkg38eTxw2GRqxrQ07fo9YsPrh9vYdzQvVhvNAe7X0RzkJXZal +dNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIu6znKVkmNw+bzHcjcSkruEiK22K39y7k+iAggQ0Z4j3+ZKzpm H7+kAoCJzJB4zRgxMVJRTQU68zfp X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovL52XxcXLW3CNe1No9jcRWVfyRVTAb6az7AoN0jOPtXFrkNLih759iJnSL90Q3TYaFEi67nA== X-Received: by 10.223.192.65 with SMTP id c1mr11344608wrf.58.1515431770881; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:16:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from gullinbursti.inria.fr (gullinbursti.inria.fr. [138.96.193.255]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e4sm14242770wmi.14.2018.01.08.09.16.09 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:16:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:16:08 +0100 Cc: LISP mailing list list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <52854B15-A8D8-47CA-8680-B2D673191EBA@gmail.com> References: To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Current changes for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:16:14 -0000 Hello Dino, The List, That=E2=80=99s pretty cool to see activity around the document however I = am not sure the proposed changes are really addressing the structural problem of the document. The current document is a mix between data-plane, control-plane, and = operation questions. The chairs proposition of re-balancing the text between 30bis, 33bis and = an OAM documents is great. It would allow people to go directly to the point they are = interested in.=20 1. What goes on the wire: 30bis 2. Signalling procedures: 33bis 3. Implementation details, management, and troubleshooting: OAM. So it would mean that in 30bis it would just be all what is strictly = needed to allow inter-operability between xTRs, so at the end only packet format and how = to understand fields should be there. In this case, we can abstract the xTR as just a = database that stores mapping, how mapping are managed in this database is an = implementation question that is independent of the protocol itself. For 33bis, it would just be the format of signalling messages and how to = interpret them, when a signal is expected to be triggered. Finally, in OAM it would be how to implement and manage a LISP system = that is constituted of the LISP control-plane proposed in 33bis and the LISP = data-plane in 30bis. To say it clearly: remove from 30bis and 33bis all what is just the = reflect of one implementation. Normally these two document should have only what is = strictly necessary for people to implement (the way THEY want) a system that = would Inter-operate with the others.=20 If we look at OpenLISP and its control-plane and the deployment of = LISP-Lab that we use in production daily, we can see that the data plane and = control plane have been implemented independently (and by different teams and even companies) and what we can say is that a large fraction of the text in = 60bis has not been used at all for implementing the data-plane, while, on the = contrary we had to massively read/use text from 30bis to be able to implement the control-plane. Finally, people that deployed LISP-Lab had to take = content from both 30bis and 33bis to be able to have a working environment. That demonstrates that the separation is not done properly as normally people=20= in charge of deploying a network should not have to read the data-plane specs, or people implementing a control-plane should not have to read=20 data-plane specifications. I think the proposition of moving text that the chairs proposed is very reasonable and greatly improve the quality of the specifications and = therefore reduce the risk of misinterpretation and bugs while implementing the = protocolS Cheers, Damien Saucez=20 > On 4 Jan 2018, at 18:00, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? This was = the latest update from email before the year ended. I have made most of = the changes that Luigi suggested or requested. >=20 > Dino >=20 > = _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Jan 8 10:23:15 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BDE127876 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:23:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 MYjimhGkMQoj for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (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 CCA6312D7F7 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id e3so6534958pfi.10 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:22:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kzQ2dlilJsTvoPgZYQ+oFvepud48/umKQG1wE3bPprE=; b=Ng7/gb36g2Ss2feyVB8yBqV3pVUdaWT+59YmtZpznQA7gJLd0aYBTpwHEzOIfe++fV PIjKIT7+zSG3yVAgqcv0AIZvYgPioHtJsWJb+YPZIQWrnmk9CWF27vONxP2WCkYgCUwn dqEqg3+jgSDCigAx3Vl7RBk8ZR5Rr/jxYgwIsH14hb2ijiUvqf0AgFMp4ivJhPEwfpRp RnuZzmo04tB0ipdu4eUVJXcveS3wcXoBvEXE4rvv+Bt/Tn1t3cX16K31FNYUFbluxpK8 KB+8/xR/Hy3NRmjbZmZnMtPOMONJw1leSw7OTMUnyaW3PkmwWI6mIIxjcrizsoKQvke2 yHGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kzQ2dlilJsTvoPgZYQ+oFvepud48/umKQG1wE3bPprE=; b=YXe0Ym/TkH3tM1i80qBnsgvaJuHDRGlb8z16GcVsaV7Lr0HD6EeFOVplBIs5g+U2pd AxaSy1wk1KJjsNbuY5zqhNJLBpBh2/E3EulZB4Hb5H7ipYle6kwMWx+Qe96DA4vS7bfT zJZ3lRyDcHs5sxDf3v8lLyALCKmmP0xuBrXK7xdX9X/jLhXBJhAAIDAWkG3EvxTy1yNJ +tFUsL4GXCBZ6n3zFV5+e0JpNgMrc/YlRphyNSm/PscjDvIocWBphKA/60NcQlw43+zC KzIjuFKxJ9bsMYki1PncWUDKwsDWxG5gKLq4R3pPQo5wFX6aZpfRkdmG0/GcaMJP/0Am 9T7g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLBFD3POXyfC60e0JtQYR13sQ0R5cDZLju9AylvOsWpNGjUbGEN nayV/g/Ofimh1pqa23gv+mE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou1BgqmfWgc7XcTIN1RncZ+6DBCt+w0FWbTmKLop+6bT8+OTk7Z1wXiFlUNDWqD8Y/IrIu16A== X-Received: by 10.101.66.12 with SMTP id c12mr10471677pgq.105.1515435779378; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:22:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e8sm28949902pfk.6.2018.01.08.10.22.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:22:58 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <52854B15-A8D8-47CA-8680-B2D673191EBA@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:22:57 -0800 Cc: LISP mailing list list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <52854B15-A8D8-47CA-8680-B2D673191EBA@gmail.com> To: Damien Saucez X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Current changes for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:23:02 -0000 Do you think it is okay to capture the changes we have made and agreed = upon so far so we can submit -08 and wait for other WG members to = comment on this issue? What you are suggesting is a lot change that what was previously agreed = upon. No one was really in favor of having a third document (your OAM = reference below (3)).=20 Also the chairs didn=E2=80=99t suggest any changes, it was Luigi (acting = as a document shepherd). I am not sure the same comment came from Joel, = either publicly or privately. Dino > On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Damien Saucez = wrote: >=20 > Hello Dino, The List, >=20 > That=E2=80=99s pretty cool to see activity around the document however = I am not sure the proposed > changes are really addressing the structural problem of the document. >=20 > The current document is a mix between data-plane, control-plane, and = operation questions. >=20 > The chairs proposition of re-balancing the text between 30bis, 33bis = and an OAM documents > is great. It would allow people to go directly to the point they are = interested in.=20 >=20 > 1. What goes on the wire: 30bis > 2. Signalling procedures: 33bis > 3. Implementation details, management, and troubleshooting: OAM. >=20 > So it would mean that in 30bis it would just be all what is strictly = needed to allow > inter-operability between xTRs, so at the end only packet format and = how to understand > fields should be there. In this case, we can abstract the xTR as just = a database that > stores mapping, how mapping are managed in this database is an = implementation > question that is independent of the protocol itself. >=20 > For 33bis, it would just be the format of signalling messages and how = to interpret > them, when a signal is expected to be triggered. >=20 > Finally, in OAM it would be how to implement and manage a LISP system = that is > constituted of the LISP control-plane proposed in 33bis and the LISP = data-plane in > 30bis. >=20 > To say it clearly: remove from 30bis and 33bis all what is just the = reflect of one > implementation. Normally these two document should have only what is = strictly > necessary for people to implement (the way THEY want) a system that = would > Inter-operate with the others.=20 >=20 > If we look at OpenLISP and its control-plane and the deployment of = LISP-Lab > that we use in production daily, we can see that the data plane and = control plane > have been implemented independently (and by different teams and even > companies) and what we can say is that a large fraction of the text in = 60bis > has not been used at all for implementing the data-plane, while, on = the contrary > we had to massively read/use text from 30bis to be able to implement = the > control-plane. Finally, people that deployed LISP-Lab had to take = content > from both 30bis and 33bis to be able to have a working environment. = That > demonstrates that the separation is not done properly as normally = people=20 > in charge of deploying a network should not have to read the = data-plane > specs, or people implementing a control-plane should not have to read=20= > data-plane specifications. >=20 > I think the proposition of moving text that the chairs proposed is = very > reasonable and greatly improve the quality of the specifications and = therefore > reduce the risk of misinterpretation and bugs while implementing the = protocolS >=20 >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Damien Saucez=20 >=20 >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 18:00, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >> Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? This was = the latest update from email before the year ended. I have made most of = the changes that Luigi suggested or requested. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >> = _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 From nobody Mon Jan 8 15:27:48 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0420D126CE8 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PsRvSNp29hbO for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yb0-x22a.google.com (mail-yb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22a]) (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 05A78126D05 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v17so3790639ybl.10 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 15:27:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=C/JI+koUVAqaWotff8ESq3fupD5dikw+u1Y6alfGa7g=; b=YT5WfP41UrCWLCfUntUTqPGQATkpAxnTGKkPMWevEvxm2VFwNnsSydgRFPSGobp6cR etYLjJJQYoFlagg505R3PEavyt0hR9iGziE8cOOeFkcyg8NJ1Lv+C5FZocuzkjz/O8/7 BnsVwLVftMwT9+i3wMMVA5II5Zu1bS+DRofZr4aYIJDXekSxDaV3jsTIT4Alxwn0NqUU NFAmMOOZOyxqZsVpmQbsKFAByG6eWNci6QmjsDCCjl8UAxtUthLKOr0ASBi7xwC9N71p oagxJkXM2qc9Kp4RCgeJv+dwhprFseC7eHQ/AY/5TWf08SZmMSQlDG7LVMF7ynozzmKz qb9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C/JI+koUVAqaWotff8ESq3fupD5dikw+u1Y6alfGa7g=; b=EC9f0ifdE2AM586/DMN4B6ZlOrDQpnx2nYtwqUNU4qnvX72ycYEnUGFE2/imYzDH9U jSii+zrKQfbflOK30y6dIie6Dtk6YOul7OTTIg0fISGpU5LBKSOxzWqIjoP9FtVdyWVi GJex7UvQ4t/YYZeVQLgjgk3JTNCKdQI42DO+5xUVIGdrFABZ6wVgZJL25JCo6stLLuh9 Rc+UqOeeyzzYusmxEpbzW9OQQpb97OZfRmVNjexWqLJYlfJtyOIOP4MyLclIURFv7czC IwyGKRZq9DhVONeYTX922Ai3FX55yqOthMFbEn8s+JoXmKOBccXn4tJD1x1rgqu+0sl1 MCvg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLGX+VJd+fGPTrcnEVutj3Bvu3EJbqmB/uzX3ARI9d5PzyR5+ya VxP2lLoRGprymOCJdPFTmIwzPn5ssX4CilViePA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosAnN6URDRqDi/qRSoivAEZX7b933SVoHabe85W6B8NIIw0Gkjq1TbggCidGyjfHDTfWRryff9rgV5ZOKQtOJ4= X-Received: by 10.37.220.148 with SMTP id y142mr12572363ybe.468.1515454063148; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 15:27:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.164.38 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:27:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52854B15-A8D8-47CA-8680-B2D673191EBA@gmail.com> From: Albert Cabellos Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 00:27:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Damien Saucez , LISP mailing list list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19181e1b84ef05624c253d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Current changes for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:27:47 -0000 --94eb2c19181e1b84ef05624c253d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi As far as I remember we didn=C2=B4t agree on 3 documents, this does not necessarily mean that it is a bad idea. I still think that SMR should be on 6833bis, it is important to standardize a control-plane that includes the capability of updating EID-to-RLOC mappings. Regarding sections Multicast, Mobility and Traceroute considerations they could be easily moved to an OAM document, but it is quite complex to properly contextualize such sections in a single standalone document. Do they have value without the context of 6830bis? In my view they are better in 6830bis. I would like to hear other opinions from the list Albert On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > Do you think it is okay to capture the changes we have made and agreed > upon so far so we can submit -08 and wait for other WG members to comment > on this issue? > > What you are suggesting is a lot change that what was previously agreed > upon. No one was really in favor of having a third document (your OAM > reference below (3)). > > Also the chairs didn=E2=80=99t suggest any changes, it was Luigi (acting = as a > document shepherd). I am not sure the same comment came from Joel, either > publicly or privately. > > Dino > > > On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Damien Saucez > wrote: > > > > Hello Dino, The List, > > > > That=E2=80=99s pretty cool to see activity around the document however = I am not > sure the proposed > > changes are really addressing the structural problem of the document. > > > > The current document is a mix between data-plane, control-plane, and > operation questions. > > > > The chairs proposition of re-balancing the text between 30bis, 33bis an= d > an OAM documents > > is great. It would allow people to go directly to the point they are > interested in. > > > > 1. What goes on the wire: 30bis > > 2. Signalling procedures: 33bis > > 3. Implementation details, management, and troubleshooting: OAM. > > > > So it would mean that in 30bis it would just be all what is strictly > needed to allow > > inter-operability between xTRs, so at the end only packet format and ho= w > to understand > > fields should be there. In this case, we can abstract the xTR as just a > database that > > stores mapping, how mapping are managed in this database is an > implementation > > question that is independent of the protocol itself. > > > > For 33bis, it would just be the format of signalling messages and how t= o > interpret > > them, when a signal is expected to be triggered. > > > > Finally, in OAM it would be how to implement and manage a LISP system > that is > > constituted of the LISP control-plane proposed in 33bis and the LISP > data-plane in > > 30bis. > > > > To say it clearly: remove from 30bis and 33bis all what is just the > reflect of one > > implementation. Normally these two document should have only what is > strictly > > necessary for people to implement (the way THEY want) a system that wou= ld > > Inter-operate with the others. > > > > If we look at OpenLISP and its control-plane and the deployment of > LISP-Lab > > that we use in production daily, we can see that the data plane and > control plane > > have been implemented independently (and by different teams and even > > companies) and what we can say is that a large fraction of the text in > 60bis > > has not been used at all for implementing the data-plane, while, on the > contrary > > we had to massively read/use text from 30bis to be able to implement th= e > > control-plane. Finally, people that deployed LISP-Lab had to take conte= nt > > from both 30bis and 33bis to be able to have a working environment. Tha= t > > demonstrates that the separation is not done properly as normally peopl= e > > in charge of deploying a network should not have to read the data-plane > > specs, or people implementing a control-plane should not have to read > > data-plane specifications. > > > > I think the proposition of moving text that the chairs proposed is very > > reasonable and greatly improve the quality of the specifications and > therefore > > reduce the risk of misinterpretation and bugs while implementing the > protocolS > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Damien Saucez > > > >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 18:00, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> > >> Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? This was > the latest update from email before the year ended. I have made most of t= he > changes that Luigi suggested or requested. > >> > >> Dino > >> > >> ___________________________________ > ____________ > >> lisp mailing list > >> lisp@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > --94eb2c19181e1b84ef05624c253d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi=C2= =A0


As far as I remember we didn=C2=B4t agree on 3 do= cuments, this does not necessarily mean that it is a bad idea.


I still think that SMR should be on 6833bis, it i= s important to standardize a control-plane that includes the capability of = updating EID-to-RLOC mappings.


Regarding sections Multicast, Mobility and Tracer= oute considerations they could be easily moved to an OAM document, but it i= s quite complex to properly contextualize such sections in a single standal= one document. Do they have value without the context of 6830bis? In my view= they are better in 6830bis.


I would like to hear other opinions from the list=


Albert


On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

Dino

> On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Dino, The List,
>
> That=E2=80=99s pretty cool to see activity around the document however= I am not sure the proposed
> changes are really addressing the structural problem of the document.<= br> >
> The current document is a mix between data-plane, control-plane, and o= peration questions.
>
> The chairs proposition of re-balancing the text between 30bis, 33bis a= nd an OAM documents
> is great. It would allow people to go directly to the point they are i= nterested in.
>
> 1. What goes on the wire: 30bis
> 2. Signalling procedures: 33bis
> 3. Implementation details, management, and troubleshooting: OAM.
>
> So it would mean that in 30bis it would just be all what is strictly n= eeded to allow
> inter-operability between xTRs, so at the end only packet format and h= ow to understand
> fields should be there. In this case, we can abstract the xTR as just = a database that
> stores mapping, how mapping are managed in this database is an impleme= ntation
> question that is independent of the protocol itself.
>
> For 33bis, it would just be the format of signalling messages and how = to interpret
> them, when a signal is expected to be triggered.
>
> Finally, in OAM it would be how to implement and manage a LISP system = that is
> constituted of the LISP control-plane proposed in 33bis and the LISP d= ata-plane in
> 30bis.
>
> To say it clearly: remove from 30bis and 33bis all what is just the re= flect of one
> implementation. Normally these two document should have only what is s= trictly
> necessary for people to implement (the way THEY want) a system that wo= uld
> Inter-operate with the others.
>
> If we look at OpenLISP and its control-plane and the deployment of LIS= P-Lab
> that we use in production daily, we can see that the data plane and co= ntrol plane
> have been implemented independently (and by different teams and even > companies) and what we can say is that a large fraction of the text in= 60bis
> has not been used at all for implementing the data-plane, while, on th= e contrary
> we had to massively read/use text from 30bis to be able to implement t= he
> control-plane. Finally, people that deployed LISP-Lab had to take cont= ent
> from both 30bis and 33bis to be able to have a working environment. Th= at
> demonstrates that the separation is not done properly as normally peop= le
> in charge of deploying a network should not have to read the data-plan= e
> specs, or people implementing a control-plane should not have to read<= br> > data-plane specifications.
>
> I think the proposition of moving text that the chairs proposed is ver= y
> reasonable and greatly improve the quality of the specifications and t= herefore
> reduce the risk of misinterpretation and bugs while implementing the p= rotocolS
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Damien Saucez
>
>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 18:00, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? This w= as the latest update from email before the year ended. I have made most of = the changes that Luigi suggested or requested.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>> <rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html>______________________________= _________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

--94eb2c19181e1b84ef05624c253d-- From nobody Tue Jan 9 07:03:36 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEBB128959 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:03:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 CMJ7jqaA3WdJ for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 17C7F126C0F for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id i11so21179743wmf.4 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:03:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=MrD0NXWNYSCvFOqduHHKrbIm4b+xXPOUI9s8YY5yiIQ=; b=LQeAuxFUzL8gvsgnLyBMjV+L2iM3bP4Znfqfb9n9h28ARzcJDw5DVApXQnrCzNGp+F V0PcAOLT6JAgylToXDHyDYAeEzJvlzU3MZ2jfG1Nmws8+48yCM+RjcEQ8uDONtmLyJyW CwB6EzBsWN6P7e5jm2bp7kNm0Okx+T0zUbIs42GpnOUrdYv8gqVlTxLZmN3x6NQ+xSa6 pmPfFcbc8j/TELrkH9UJk5sPhjtgx4TgWfbH5DGooqkp+lj+wIGl0V5B5FSknTEPf3DD NThut9sByXGN3nf18kWNqN46wo7KzcD95FU2Zrc91R9nqp8TA01xDiIxBv/YsC5wFYOx yGjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=MrD0NXWNYSCvFOqduHHKrbIm4b+xXPOUI9s8YY5yiIQ=; b=QUGT5Q94NQNxKlk9pPLiwL5015HgM1KYjssFPg6EfVjVnYIoz5xSXZHvr24Cl6XMWz kG9DNtG2ABl6liEIYwIeMlnrnSX14kXAl7aJdvNUiNKR6jwSOvbb61SW5vrzXFp8OaT+ i2x/kWHFw6uhn9EUuKYrXVW03WemmZ9T4sxwZQjvFmN7H3rZ03y4herdmcUPMyZvmFlN R7mRtf9zWSI7OCjalF+5x58Lyn/fCDPfUjf0GD4mQB5mzcH6/lVXHi1xXpgvRGzLiAwA DI2TmWz05tc0CEmeHeJNniX+aqDmxeARCfTc43mQCUXKeNMm5yzmE0nBZf52JkKrJWez YEbQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIbFO+X/3tyl+9Fn5D+QWVvQwGwy0gmAOjpmg20B7T6vavNSIW+ 6/C+/tDv5i7qrvmtV0wAnwi2dxjg4WA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosj/g72HBw3G/oNjpbieHeJEqZmuTY22EEXQby41OEJXOnMHen/TpcJRIS8vaJWmviVdxM0UA== X-Received: by 10.28.234.10 with SMTP id i10mr11871865wmh.14.1515510206360; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:03:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4? ([2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w195sm13600173wmw.46.2018.01.09.07.03.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:03:24 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Message-Id: <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A7E7F0CE-63A9-4095-A0BA-50E081433178" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:04:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" To: Albert Cabellos References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:03:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A7E7F0CE-63A9-4095-A0BA-50E081433178 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 HI Albert, thanks for your reply.=20 My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) Luigi > On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos > wrote: >=20 [snip] > > > > > > Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] > > lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. > > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a > > host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet > > must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that > > manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally > > unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY > > be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network > > topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In > > addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local > > structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure > > is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit > > string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC > > for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a > > given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the > > same entity in both cases. > > > > > > Is the above sentence really necessary? > > >=20 > Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the = =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID = is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This = change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure = if this is a good idea. For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an = RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D=20= I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces are = well scoped there is no need for this.=20 [snip] About the following: >=20 > > > > o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. > > > > o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for > > further information. > > > > I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. > > > > >=20 > I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start = from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is the = bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets with = the previous one.=20 >=20 > > > > The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with > > ECN bits and DSCP . > > > > 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. > > > > 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the = encap/decap not a paragraph apart. > > This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a = bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation > > and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >=20 >=20 > Agreed, what about this (please comment): >=20 > When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >=20 > o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' = field. > o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >=20 > When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >=20 > o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. > o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >=20 > Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >=20 > Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >=20 Text looks very good to me. >=20 > > > > Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as such = should be put in 6833bis. > > > > What this section should state is that priority and weight are used = to select the RLOC to use. > > Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do = not know neither priority nor weight. > > > > All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in this = document. > > >=20 > Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is = less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >=20 > The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >=20 Yes, this is what I meant. > Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing' >=20 >=20 I think is a good idea. [snip] > > 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings > > > > > > This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, with = two exception: > > The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. > > > > All of the rest 6833bis > > > > Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. > > > > >=20 > So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define any = mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings?=20 >=20 Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, = but things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane = mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because = there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense to put = it elsewhere. Thanks Luigi --Apple-Mail=_A7E7F0CE-63A9-4095-A0BA-50E081433178 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

HI Albert,

thanks for your reply. 

My comments inline. = (trimming what is OK for me)

Luigi

On 27 = Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com> wrote:


[snip]
>
>
>   Endpoint ID = (EID):   An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034]
>      lookup or Session = Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
>   =    The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to = set a
>      host's "local" IP = address.  An EID used on the public Internet
> =      must have the same properties as any other IP = address used in that
>      manner; this = means, among other things, that it must be globally
> =      unique.  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.  Note = that EID blocks MAY
>      be assigned = in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network
> =      topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping = database.  In
>      addition, an = EID block assigned to a site may have site-local
> =      structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; = this structure
>      is not visible to = the global routing system.  In theory, the bit
> =      string that represents an EID for one device can = represent an RLOC
>      for a different = device.  As the architecture is realized, if a
> =      given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must = refer to the
>      same entity in both = cases.
>
>
> Is the = above sentence really necessary?
>

Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written = from the =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say = that an EID is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the = overlay. This change may require further changes on the document so I am = not 100% sure if this is a good idea.

For clarification I was just referring = to the sentence:

 " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit = string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in = both cases.=E2=80=9D 

I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If = namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this. 

[snip]

About the following:

>
>   o  EIDs are typically IP = addresses assigned to hosts.
>
>   o  Other = types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for
> =      further information.
>
> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of = EID. It simplifies the story here.
>
>

I suggest to leave them = here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start from the =E2=80=98Definition = of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant concepts to understand = LISP.

Good point about de definition of = terms. What really bothers me is the bullet organisation. What can be = done is to merge these two bullets with the previous = one. 


>
> The = description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity concerning how = to deal with
> ECN bits and DSCP .
>
> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the = difference between DSCP and ECN fields.
>
> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the = description of the  encap/decap not a paragraph apart.
>    This basically means that half of the last = paragraph should be a bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation
>    and the other half  in the ETR/PETR = operation.


Agreed, what = about this (please comment):

  =  When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

    o  The outer-header = 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD = be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field.
    o  The outer-header 'Differentiated = Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field = ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception = listed below.
   o  The 'Explicit = Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic = Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding = indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the = 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. = Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer = header to the new outer header.

When doing ETR/PETR = decapsulation:

   o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' field = (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the = outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner = header.  Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live = of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation = cycles.  This check is also performed when doing initial = encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP = site.
   o  The inner-header = 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic = Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) = considering the exception listed below.
  =  o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the = 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the = surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the = ETR.  These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that = uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication = due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints.

Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an = ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net = effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to = Live as the old outer header minus 1.

Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves = two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the = packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for = suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of = concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for = TTL exception handling for traceroute packets.


Text looks very good to = me.



>
> Large = part of this section is about control plane issues and as such should be = put in 6833bis.
>
> What this section = should state is that priority and weight are used to select the RLOC to = use.
> Only exception is gleaning where we have one = single RLOC and we do not know neither priority nor weight.
>
> All the other operational discussion = goes elsewhere, but not in this document.
>

Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to = leave in 6830bis is less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just = a couple of ideas):

The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache = to encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using = a control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following = the Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache.


Yes, this is what I = meant.


Actually we should merge this = section with 'Routing Locator Hashing'



I think is a good = idea.

[snip]
> 13.  = Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
>
>
> This is a control plane issue, as = such it has to go in 6833bis, with two exception:
> The = very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism.
>
> All of the rest 6833bis
>
> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting = operations issues like this in an OAM document which would be a good = idea.
>
>

So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not = define any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings?


Not = exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, but = things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane = mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because = there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense =  to put it elsewhere.

Thanks

Luigi









= --Apple-Mail=_A7E7F0CE-63A9-4095-A0BA-50E081433178-- From nobody Tue Jan 9 07:04:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B86126C0F for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:04:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 Il025v8KYKyE for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:04:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::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 63F5F128959 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:04:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 36so14430000wrh.1 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:04:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=9Bu3STVexHFOlAzCyFWvAKCiTit+HrprQnknRhHuqDk=; b=WGVfMKioALk8udi7WW8Buh2IR3MQg9fIz7MlLP4mmHZANO10PhXtHKuCnCQirQ+fR1 2EdacGsN2SbrSXEeC2FBd0KgFQtoIgWsnZxMY8IDvYkqbGC9wRNdrWuVdzQ2pwXDedbD i7ryplq1H1GfCOJ4eFHsXCU9A+S5/vOtzOIG17svsuO41ysPJg4LWKt4vTLIs0ktVucs UQznudFNBjCinRTjll1kv8ym2OUW8a5DNAZEGBJjNWIo6V3TaKRid3C1hzGPJFU0eRGh plFennwihGAgPwWtS3or5SNDM3J9ElWgqE8/aJewMRNUZperIDc3s9bryWlLa3OCFoFc sxIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=9Bu3STVexHFOlAzCyFWvAKCiTit+HrprQnknRhHuqDk=; b=ghRKh9yT69yIEET1RIX4dVjG5lwexmHzzBbgGM8MVc5X2Wla6Akfcu1yKRqI5Gfxdl lsA5cgwSG4obMRv5iWvKzOhWtBW4XqskWz+8mOPEHm7EeHG4JL2We7s2DsLOP0SnmqlF XFrskZYaGDrRfUlkAMnhQ0f5r62176xSgKAmyZ46UQngcryZ5/4NidX6eYTYa170iiq8 hfgdbDhIE4fBNrYOXFdzr6ItZW8N1Nb89l1mM6eugJMBUvSil3gtk8bMRYNo2OScBWv1 NozqRvmYZ/plGMPOYXVJzLqJzS/Dd/MOFc/0VdmQpHJ6oMXJnkyUEtTwuRnSyisulhIv PFPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIbEi3FuImmtnifQ1b8lS2AocBR0Tdb5HWaWrbizEL+U2rlt8/0 3/zv/6dktjOLnTXYU09fxD45+3HS4FQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosScCbkk2zyTwlpZ0LKgmjnBN/lqeYluJya+PsyxSdTZ4UYafxWMd6sSn/mr1BNTUUn60x50g== X-Received: by 10.223.176.17 with SMTP id f17mr6769937wra.178.1515510261666; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4? ([2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w195sm13600173wmw.46.2018.01.09.07.04.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:04:19 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2E84D05-09F2-4BA0-A11D-CC305720646D" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:04:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" To: Dino Farinacci References: <599A8A3E-E291-4F8A-9461-CBE87C1A2C6F@gigix.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS) X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:04:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D2E84D05-09F2-4BA0-A11D-CC305720646D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Dino, my detailed comments are inline as usual, but I was wondering if is = there a strong valid reason not to move text around? The objective of this documentation is to be accessible easily by anyone = that is willing to work or implement LISP, not only to specialist. The = decomposition of functionality is thus essential so people don=E2=80=99t = have to make important effort to understand what is strictly LISP = encapsulation data-plane (specific to this encapsulation method), what = is operation of the system, and what is control-plane (general to any = encapsulation below). >=20 > On 27 Dec 2017, at 05:54, Dino Farinacci > wrote: >=20 > New update included. I have made a lot of your requested changes but = still disagree with many of your points. More justification below. >=20 >>> It is about not losing important information we decided 10 years ago = to keep >>> in because otherwise, we=E2=80=99d have to sprinkle it across = documents. And WE DID decide to NOT create a third document. >>=20 >> AFAIR there was only consensus in having two documents. >> I can live with two documents, but the content has to be clear. At = this stage I do not consider its content clear enough. >=20 > Well you have to be specific where you think it is not clear. >=20 >>=20 >>>> The document can be shorter and to the point. There are a lot of = OAM information that does not belong to the data-plane. >>>=20 >>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if = LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or = use the LISP control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in = their data-planes. Hence, why this information is there. >>=20 >> Doesn=E2=80=99t make sense to me. That is not a reason.=20 >=20 > It is a reason, maybe one you don=E2=80=99t like, but it is a reason. >=20 The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text = that does not belong to the data-plane.=20 >> That information can be available in another document and still be = used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane. >=20 > But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in = a control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830. >=20 We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer and = easier to read. [snip] >=20 >>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point = describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear. >>>=20 >>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell = me why you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to = EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then = we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else.=20 >> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details. >=20 > Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I=E2=80=99m not = going to change it. >=20 Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert. >> You can actually put them at the end of section 1 as normal = sentences. We then add a reference to LCAF and state that this document = describes procedures only for EID that are IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. >=20 > The intro section is taking about broad concepts. Describing EIDs and = RLOC encodings is too early for it. Is not encoding is the concept that and EID can be anything. But if you do my previous suggestion it will work for me. [snip] >> In the ITR part we put as last bullet the first part of the original = paragraph: >>=20 >> - =16=16The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN=E2=80=99), = namely bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 and IPv6 headers, requires = special treatment >> in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion = [RFC3168]. An ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field = from the inner >> header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the = 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer = header. >>=20 >>=20 >> In the ETR part we put as last bullet the second part of the original = paragraph: >>=20 >> - =16=16The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN=E2=80=99), = namely bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 and IPv6 headers, requires = special treatment >> in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion = [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication = codepoint (the >> value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), = then ETR/PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from >> the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is = used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. =20 >>=20 >> that=E2=80=99s it=20 >=20 > I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black = spent effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don=E2=80=99t want = to repeat text as you suggested above. >=20 The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review the = text again to make sure nothing has been lost. >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 9. Routing Locator Selection >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are = used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we = do not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >>>>>=20 >>>>> We have already decided (a year ago) not to move this because its = the data-plane that needs to know about locator reachability so it knows = which locators to use. >>>>=20 >>>> Please check the minutes of past meetings (as I did), the only = unclear point was SMR, everything else was agreed to be moved out.=20 >>>=20 >>> Please point it out. We have taken every input from the WG. >>=20 >> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-lisp = >=20 > All I see in the notes about RLOC-probing is this: >=20 > - Luigi Iannone says for him RLOC probing/Clock Sweep should be = in Control > Plane. > - Dino Farinacci says that if people want to use LISP control = plane, > seeing RLOC probing in control plane document may look awkward = for > people not willing to use the lisp data encapsulation. >=20 > And we already know this. ;-) Please listen to the recording.=20 >=20 > That doesn=E2=80=99t tell me there was a decision or concensus. >=20 >>>> Exactly, it has been decided, hence control plane things go in the = control plane document. (or OAM) >>>=20 >>> You are trying to draw a hard wall between the data-plane and = control-plane. In the real world that is not how protocols are deployed. >>=20 >> I am trying to make this a high quality document. I really don=E2=80=99= t want that the document comes back from the IESG because this would = delay publication a lot. >> Besides, this is a specification document, independent from the = implementationS. If anybody wants to tighten somehow control and data = planes, they are free to go that way. >>=20 >> What we need here is to put some text in 6833bis, and replace it here = with the sentence =E2=80=9COther control plane based reachability = mechanism can be found in [6833bis]=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> In 6833bis we do the opposite, we add the text cut from 6830bis and = add =E2=80=9COther data plane based reachability mechanism can be found = in [6830bis]=E2=80=9D >=20 > Is this a new comment. Sounds like you are suggesting something new. No. Is the same suggestion.=20 Remove the text and put the sentence: =E2=80=9COther control plane based = reachability mechanisms can be found in [6833bis]=E2=80=9D In 6833bis you add the ext remove from 6830bis and at the end you add = =E2=80=9COther data plane based reachability mechanisms can be found in = [6830bis]=E2=80=9D=20 >=20 >>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea.=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> I don=E2=80=99t agree. We had already mentioned there is a = control-plane protocol that is described in RFC6833bis and a data-plane = protocol that USEs the control-plane protocol. And the usage should be = here. >>>>=20 >>>> Not following here. Why should the data-plane control the control = plane? >>>=20 >>> It is not controlling the control-plane, it is using it. Did my = example of an API not make that clear? >>>=20 >>=20 >> To me was not clear, let me try to reword. >> The link between control and data planes is the LISP cache and some = events that may trigger specific operations. >> If those operations are data-plane they stay here.=20 >> It those operations are control-plane they go in 6833bis. >=20 > The data-plane does echo-noncing. So that should remain in the = data-plane based on your premise above. I think you=E2=80=99d agree with = that. But RLOC-probes may be suppressed due to echo-noncing showing = reachability. Do you want to put echo-noncing logic in 6833bis if you = move RLOC-probing there. >=20 > That would not be a good thing. >=20 > Also, if a map-cache entry doesn=E2=80=99t exist, no RLOC-probes are = sent. So how to do you say that in a control-plane document when there = are a lot of reasons to send RLOC-probes. RLOC-probes are sent to do = lisp-crypto key-exchange, that is a data-plane feature. >=20 > Please, let=E2=80=99s just keep it where it is and let=E2=80=99s move = on. As I suggested in first mail:=20 We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce,=20 We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> [snip] >>=20 >>=20 >>>>> Making changes like this to RFC6833 will be huge. >>>>=20 >>>> You do not have to. see my comment above. >>>>=20 >>>>> We have the documents separated in the current state right now = that seems to work and seems to be clear. >>>>=20 >>>> I did not have time to go over 6833bis, but concerning 6830bis the = document is not clear and it is a patchwork of data-plane, = control-plane, and deployment issues. >>>>=20 >>>> This is not what was agreed upon when we started this effort. >>>=20 >>> The effort was continuing. And we created options with further = study. >>=20 >> Not sure I am following here. The initial intent was two have two = documents. >>=20 >>> Both Albert and I did that further study and the drafts reflect the = decisions. There were no WG objections other than from you which we had = thought we convinced. >>=20 >> Again, IETF 96th. Yes, I proposed at the mic to move the text in = 6833bis, only objection to this was you on the SMR mechanism. >> Other then the SMR point we draw a clear line. >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 19. Security Considerations >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833], in >>>>>>> addition [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication and = integrity to >>>>>>> LISP mappings. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>> lisp-sec is control-plane has to be referenced in 6833bis. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Yes, but if an ITR caches a coarse EID-prefix, then there is a = data-plane redirection attack. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> My point is that lisp-sec provides control plane features, so the = sentence does not bring anything to the discussion. >>>> Please delete. >>=20 >> Any comment here? >=20 > No comment. I think we should reference it. Can you share your reasoning? >=20 >>=20 >>>>>>> 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 = for >>>>>>> lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has = updated >>>>>>> the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets >>>>>>> lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 4342 is control-plane and MUST be requested to IANA in the = 6833bis document. >>>>>=20 >>>>> We didn=E2=80=99t want to change the registry so we are keeping = this here. Its really no big deal. >>>>=20 >>>>> Note the data-plane implementation will have to send to the 4342 = socket so its not out of place at all for this to be in this document. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> 4342 is control plane not data plane, any further review beyond = the WG will point out this inconsistency. >>>=20 >>> Sorry a data-plane component uses it >>=20 >>> . Why split it up when we can have this in one place. >>=20 >> Can you elaborate better your rationale?=20 >=20 > The registry already refers to RFC6830. What=E2=80=99s the point of = changing this when it really is a very minor point. Because this is a data-plane document and there is no point in defining = control plane codepoints here. thanks Luigi >=20 > Dino >=20 > >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_D2E84D05-09F2-4BA0-A11D-CC305720646D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Dino,

my detailed comments are inline as usual, but I was wondering = if is there a strong valid reason not to move text around?

The objective of this = documentation is to be accessible easily by anyone that is willing to = work or implement LISP, not only to specialist. The decomposition of = functionality is thus essential so people don=E2=80=99t have to make = important effort to understand what is strictly LISP encapsulation = data-plane (specific to this encapsulation method), what is operation of = the system, and what is control-plane (general to any encapsulation = below).




On 27 Dec 2017, at = 05:54, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:

New update included. I have made a lot of your requested = changes but still disagree with many of your points. More justification = below.

It is about not losing = important information we decided 10 years ago to keep
in = because otherwise, we=E2=80=99d have to sprinkle it across documents. = And WE DID decide to NOT create a third document.

AFAIR there was only consensus in = having two documents.
I can live with two documents, but = the content has to be clear. At this stage I do not consider its content = clear enough.

Well you have to = be specific where you think it is not clear.


The = document can be shorter and to the point. There are a lot of OAM = information that does not belong to the data-plane.

The OAM information is necessary = for the data-plane. And if LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane = wants to use their own OAM or use the LISP control-plane differently, it = needs to be documented in their data-planes. Hence, why this information = is there.

Doesn=E2=80=99t make = sense to me. That is not a reason.

It is a reason, maybe one you don=E2=80=99t like, but it is a = reason.


The = point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text that = does not belong to the data-plane.


That information can be available in another document and = still be used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane.

But we decided on only 2 = documents. And if we put data-plane usage in a control-plane document, = then we are making 6833bis like 6830.


We are better organising the = specifications so that they are clearer and easier to read.


[snip]

You break the operational flow by opening a different point = describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear.

It was put there because someone = commented on it. You have to tell me why you think it breaks flow. We = discuss how end-systems send to EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they = are assigned to hosts. And then we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, = simple, and straight-forward.


Those two point would have more = emphasis somewhere else.
Where they are now they break = the flow and do not provide details.

Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I=E2=80=99m= not going to change it.


Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to = Albert.

You can actually put = them at the end of section 1 as normal sentences. We then add a = reference to LCAF and state that this document describes procedures only = for EID that are IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

The intro section is taking about broad concepts. Describing = EIDs and RLOC encodings is too early for it.

Is not encoding is the concept = that and EID can be anything.
But if you do my previous = suggestion it will work for me.


[snip]
In the ITR part we put = as last bullet the first part of the original paragraph:
= - =16=16The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN=E2=80=99), = namely bits  6 and 7 of both the IPv4 and  IPv6 headers, = requires special treatment
 in order to avoid = discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].  An ITR/PITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
=  header to the outer header.  Re-encapsulation MUST = copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new = outer header.


In the ETR = part we put as last bullet the second part of the original paragraph:

- =16=16The Explicit Congestion = Notification ('ECN=E2=80=99), namely bits  6 and 7 of both the IPv4 = and  IPv6 headers, requires special treatment
 in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].  If = the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
=  value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), = then ETR/PETR  decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field = from
     the stripped outer = header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the =  packet beyond the ETR.  

that=E2=80= =99s it

I made some minor = comments but do not want to undo what David Black spent effort on and = got approval for. And I certainly don=E2=80=99t want to repeat text as = you suggested above.


The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to = review the text again to make sure nothing has been lost.





9. =  Routing Locator Selection

Large part of this section is about control = plane issues and as such should be put in 6833bis.

What this section should state is that priority and weight = are used to select the RLOC to use.
Only exception is = gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do not know neither = priority nor weight.

All the other = operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in this document.

We have already decided (a year = ago) not to move this because its the data-plane that needs to know = about locator reachability so it knows which locators to use.

Please check the minutes of past = meetings (as I did), the only unclear point was SMR, everything else was = agreed to be moved out.

Please = point it out. We have taken every input from the WG.

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-lisp=

All I see in the notes about = RLOC-probing is this:

- Luigi = Iannone says for him RLOC probing/Clock Sweep should be in Control
= Plane.
- Dino Farinacci says that if = people want to use LISP control plane,
seeing = RLOC probing in control plane document may look awkward for
= people not willing to use the lisp data encapsulation.

And we already know this.  ;-)

Please listen to the recording. =


That doesn=E2=80=99t tell me there was a decision or = concensus.

Exactly, it has been decided, hence control plane things go = in the control plane document. (or OAM)

You are trying to draw a hard wall between the data-plane and = control-plane. In the real world that is not how protocols are = deployed.

I am trying to make = this  a high quality document. I really don=E2=80=99t want that the = document comes back from the IESG because this would delay publication a = lot.
Besides, this is a specification document, = independent from the implementationS. If anybody wants to tighten = somehow control and data planes, they are free to go that way.

What we need here is to put some text in = 6833bis, and replace it here with the sentence =E2=80=9COther control = plane based reachability mechanism can be found in [6833bis]=E2=80=9D

In 6833bis we do the opposite, we add the text = cut from 6830bis and add =E2=80=9COther data plane based reachability = mechanism can be found in [6830bis]=E2=80=9D

Is this a new comment. Sounds = like you are suggesting something new.

No. Is the same suggestion.

Remove the text and put the sentence: =E2=80=9COther control = plane based reachability mechanisms can be found in [6833bis]=E2=80=9D

In 6833bis you add the ext remove from 6830bis = and at the end you add =E2=80=9COther data plane based reachability = mechanisms can be found in [6830bis]=E2=80=9D





Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations = issues like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea.

I don=E2=80=99t agree. We had = already mentioned there is a control-plane protocol that is described in = RFC6833bis and a data-plane protocol that USEs the control-plane = protocol. And the usage should be here.

Not following here. Why should the data-plane control the = control plane?

It is not = controlling the control-plane, it is using it. Did my example of an API = not make that clear?


To me was not clear, let me try to reword.
The = link between control and data planes is the LISP cache and some events = that may trigger specific operations.
If those operations = are data-plane they stay here.
It those operations are = control-plane they go in 6833bis.

The data-plane does echo-noncing. So that should remain in = the data-plane based on your premise above. I think you=E2=80=99d agree = with that. But RLOC-probes may be suppressed due to echo-noncing showing = reachability. Do you want to put echo-noncing logic in 6833bis if you = move RLOC-probing there.

That would not be = a good thing.

Also, if a map-cache entry = doesn=E2=80=99t exist, no RLOC-probes are sent. So how to do you say = that in a control-plane document when there are a lot of reasons to send = RLOC-probes. RLOC-probes are sent to do lisp-crypto key-exchange, that = is a data-plane feature.

Please, let=E2=80=99= s just keep it where it is and let=E2=80=99s move on.


As I suggested in = first mail:

We need to keep: 1, 6, = Echo-Nonce,

We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, =  RLOC-Probing





[snip]


Making = changes like this to RFC6833 will be huge.

You do not have to. see my comment above.

We have the documents = separated in the current state right now that seems to work and seems to = be clear.

I did not have time = to go over 6833bis, but concerning 6830bis the document is not clear and = it is a patchwork of data-plane, control-plane, and deployment = issues.

This is not what was agreed upon = when we started this effort.

The= effort was continuing. And we created options with further study.

Not sure I am following here. The = initial intent was two have two documents.

Both Albert and I did = that further study and the drafts reflect the decisions. There were no = WG objections other than from you which we had thought we convinced.

Again, IETF 96th. Yes, I proposed = at the mic to move the text in 6833bis, only objection to this was you = on the SMR mechanism.
Other then the SMR point we draw a = clear line.



19.  Security = Considerations

Security considerations for = LISP are discussed in [RFC7833], in
addition = [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication and integrity to
LISP mappings.

lisp-sec is control-plane has to be referenced = in 6833bis.

Yes, but if an ITR = caches a coarse EID-prefix, then there is a data-plane redirection = attack.


My = point is that lisp-sec provides control plane features, so the sentence = does not bring anything to the discussion.
Please = delete.

Any = comment here?

No comment. I = think we should reference it.

Can you share your reasoning?




21.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers

The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and = 4342 for
lisp-data and lisp-control operation, = respectively.  IANA has updated
the description for = UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows:

= lisp-data      4341 udp    LISP = Data Packets
lisp-control   4342 udp =    LISP Control Packets

4342 is control-plane and MUST be requested to = IANA in the 6833bis document.

We= didn=E2=80=99t want to change the registry so we are keeping this here. = Its really no big deal.

Note the data-plane = implementation will have to send to the 4342 socket so its not out of = place at all for this to be in this document.


4342  is control plane not = data plane, any further review beyond the WG will point out this = inconsistency.

Sorry a = data-plane component uses it

. Why split it up when = we can have this in one place.

Can you elaborate better your rationale?

The registry already refers to = RFC6830. What=E2=80=99s the point of changing this when it really is a = very minor point.

Because this = is a data-plane document and there is no point in defining control plane = codepoints here.

thanks

Luigi



Dino

<rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html><draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-0= 8.txt>





= --Apple-Mail=_D2E84D05-09F2-4BA0-A11D-CC305720646D-- From nobody Tue Jan 9 07:04:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AEE12D879 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:04:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 lPr-FTQuggoJ for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:04:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (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 4FE9A126C0F for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:04:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 141so4408690wme.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:04:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=per9rrlkj+AzFZwGIpgGENmM/VURoT9GtoOXN2nl6mg=; b=02i/x1mBAM2D0Fvz1uUUstYxegpsHCh+9H7CVqbieu55wus702kxGaZxDBSc3yhAwy lqSNkDyaKFxipZdGrdJCVFpIFSjirZCJKX5B6mm1D43VMNHcPPeq9xcHdA/7AdogTXy4 uElCEUCuH81j/+DvM1CKsS70KLQMLZ8a33UPf6AiaKtXXtRXyy9J21womVo6UnW2WXHI FeGYrLeVUXPb79B9VfkpxH6Oo09pQu0N/9mLyXVCHfKUXNKj2qt2ewRr2ZuTeVwXKGfQ hxUeYeyEvq74+ygNctcmjT4j1ft/tGVsLW+f4Aq5snAIlhcNlozCeb3l0SCG5mVQCYCa MSNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=per9rrlkj+AzFZwGIpgGENmM/VURoT9GtoOXN2nl6mg=; b=oNrwHrKBEYott3+ROlHtticm/GfiKgj6Lc37QBhRfhlM+drK2l6AmB2rFVGjaTbRdv K76D6RqghSS3r+GRfgco5fT088GSy5dEfKwLFRHfHShB4N5ELwT2viSp1b8gGyhNV5dz Q/z6kuOaS854jctyBil8N1Daw3jkHxJpLxsG9BAV4EXYsH2zEKBOJi2rvIF0hBC2E/BE fL8ah08OYsAFHpE89VCDCo2lSMHDWsXp1wPnTrY4EqqzzsbLgeqXj5KcwUtRz9LsKRym 4mlvNa18mL9tUStsK/99qeOi0fYsux8UKfVcMKnCsiTjHVVjU3Sgy00QCs+QTr84fdnM aVTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdC+pGMSitw6t4ZY0SVY/03/+RLrjdVbi3AbdBTsCJjbruYoRsC Zikx2rAROufgHiBLW7kVypV9kgEjf6Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot2i5owEzaAcFI1axPd50SCDW51wcV6D/ilWXNYfffZYetMtlHrAeCOkGnF8nF70LJedaalsw== X-Received: by 10.28.105.214 with SMTP id z83mr1790779wmh.77.1515510265665; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4? ([2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w195sm13600173wmw.46.2018.01.09.07.04.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:04:24 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <6924BBEB-5680-48E5-8460-F88E5F3F990B@gigix.net> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:05:03 +0100 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <6FEB1404-FA34-432A-8441-3F6B394A8217@gmail.com> <6924BBEB-5680-48E5-8460-F88E5F3F990B@gigix.net> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:04:30 -0000 Hi, On 27 Dec 2017, at 05:13, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 [snip] >> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>=20 >> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>=20 >> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' = field. >> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>=20 >> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>=20 >> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>=20 >> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>=20 >> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >=20 > I had planned to take Luigi=E2=80=99s suggestion. I did not want to = rewrite this section. It was carefully written by David Black with = consolation from the ECN experts. I do not want to lose this technical = text. The text proposed by Albert is very close to the original and has = exactly the same content, just expressed in an clearer way. No loss = here. I will ask David to review the text again. The current text in section 5.3 is still not correct because it talks = about =E2=80=9Ctype of service=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CECN=E2=80=9D.=20 Luigi From nobody Tue Jan 9 07:06:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF78C12D86A for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:06:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 NW7brxxQP_3I for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:06:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 67FA912D868 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:06:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f206so21213129wmf.5 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:06:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=BMlJ//Pv1ckpdMwKZh1zxi1YOsrbP0dYCgS7MpcDsNo=; b=DAG+h4YBmzOOAoef8wLI/lW4XPsVhF+leX5CcC4mI6ZA273xFBEOuIhkwVbKFdUbwG yKwpF8rGWB0x6jmafeGnMKuvOZexwgbKyzO0N0Wx28h0flFHHi9yuop3iuqtdPoGUlO3 VWXsROfXh0xFWWCIg+7mroaA3oR5W3Q9GErxROGlfY7MDKxPU4BPnop4A5OF0Nj/rWAm +0ZEc2k5BKCkF9BVTNDY+RGjEBYTlflljFcem4GODkyiatho8s73o7q5p2iPoK7fOA+U LiaGPHQ/3QotULGqB2mUkpugMH3Tkw2QC3HwubrFEfuKHx3yGpzuElT5B02mKJsElUyU g64g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=BMlJ//Pv1ckpdMwKZh1zxi1YOsrbP0dYCgS7MpcDsNo=; b=mhhUliS6HNzTDW6fMlBkqKToGtQRYifshcOmkF2/hOr8mTqHk+NMeRexN4BpnZVQOn obJrTlBDF8MXteNnY/9n9Ag9XVjkkxLlIF26sM4x7YxehR3rOGW1VAVooJbcu/0rNMJ3 xvKWsda7kbK6msGDCY7lRnxFI87Pdm3bkgfZZRqViTh2xI3O4M76eUuANF5CMFqFr/jT AXAGb+LtA3GGd/psRfTwuA1CytNfU40uMnIo415l4S4qCMIZXTz5PtzPrxjNYFAabW6Z lAFTo21eogO3VK+PhO9O2K3nnJiyHP8/y+WYhbjJuHjJkpERvNUJ1zMvQKzGMRIm7vRM Trlg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIpcMR8cUJWdlb2o0ZVXw+Obm5XzBzsnUnBajtQOdiJSSqsSAcX zBAi2wM6/eIgz7NyTMwNqmwLzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovDf97yJMFMLWSJGgeqhBT/19W5SVjXdy92lz+q+c9UHHjp9lgSAf6gA7wUmqGS5E6I9E/1VA== X-Received: by 10.80.225.8 with SMTP id h8mr21418063edl.194.1515510379805; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4? ([2001:660:330f:a4:c4aa:2fae:3f8:10d4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e12sm1053849edm.42.2018.01.09.07.06.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 07:06:18 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_54A26568-0E9E-48F8-86B3-B3046D68992B" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 16:06:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: LISP mailing list list To: Albert Cabellos References: <52854B15-A8D8-47CA-8680-B2D673191EBA@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Current changes for draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 15:06:24 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_54A26568-0E9E-48F8-86B3-B3046D68992B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Albert, > On 9 Jan 2018, at 00:27, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >=20 > Hi=20 >=20 > As far as I remember we didn=C2=B4t agree on 3 documents, this does = not necessarily mean that it is a bad idea. :-) >=20 > I still think that SMR should be on 6833bis, it is important to = standardize a control-plane that includes the capability of updating = EID-to-RLOC mappings. >=20 > Regarding sections Multicast, Mobility and Traceroute considerations = they could be easily moved to an OAM document, but it is quite complex = to properly contextualize such sections in a single standalone document. = Do they have value without the context of 6830bis? Probably not, but the point is that if you implement 6830bis you do need = to read OAM stuff.=20 Obviously the other way around is not true. If you want to understand = LISP OAM you need to have a good knowledge of both 30bis _AND_ 33bis, = _YET_ this does _NOT_ mean we need one single document for everything. Romans used to say "dividi et impera=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6.=20 Ciao Luigi > In my view they are better in 6830bis. >=20 > I would like to hear other opinions from the list >=20 > Albert >=20 > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Dino Farinacci > wrote: > Do you think it is okay to capture the changes we have made and agreed = upon so far so we can submit -08 and wait for other WG members to = comment on this issue? >=20 > What you are suggesting is a lot change that what was previously = agreed upon. No one was really in favor of having a third document (your = OAM reference below (3)). >=20 > Also the chairs didn=E2=80=99t suggest any changes, it was Luigi = (acting as a document shepherd). I am not sure the same comment came = from Joel, either publicly or privately. >=20 > Dino >=20 > > On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Damien Saucez > wrote: > > > > Hello Dino, The List, > > > > That=E2=80=99s pretty cool to see activity around the document = however I am not sure the proposed > > changes are really addressing the structural problem of the = document. > > > > The current document is a mix between data-plane, control-plane, and = operation questions. > > > > The chairs proposition of re-balancing the text between 30bis, 33bis = and an OAM documents > > is great. It would allow people to go directly to the point they are = interested in. > > > > 1. What goes on the wire: 30bis > > 2. Signalling procedures: 33bis > > 3. Implementation details, management, and troubleshooting: OAM. > > > > So it would mean that in 30bis it would just be all what is strictly = needed to allow > > inter-operability between xTRs, so at the end only packet format and = how to understand > > fields should be there. In this case, we can abstract the xTR as = just a database that > > stores mapping, how mapping are managed in this database is an = implementation > > question that is independent of the protocol itself. > > > > For 33bis, it would just be the format of signalling messages and = how to interpret > > them, when a signal is expected to be triggered. > > > > Finally, in OAM it would be how to implement and manage a LISP = system that is > > constituted of the LISP control-plane proposed in 33bis and the LISP = data-plane in > > 30bis. > > > > To say it clearly: remove from 30bis and 33bis all what is just the = reflect of one > > implementation. Normally these two document should have only what is = strictly > > necessary for people to implement (the way THEY want) a system that = would > > Inter-operate with the others. > > > > If we look at OpenLISP and its control-plane and the deployment of = LISP-Lab > > that we use in production daily, we can see that the data plane and = control plane > > have been implemented independently (and by different teams and even > > companies) and what we can say is that a large fraction of the text = in 60bis > > has not been used at all for implementing the data-plane, while, on = the contrary > > we had to massively read/use text from 30bis to be able to implement = the > > control-plane. Finally, people that deployed LISP-Lab had to take = content > > from both 30bis and 33bis to be able to have a working environment. = That > > demonstrates that the separation is not done properly as normally = people > > in charge of deploying a network should not have to read the = data-plane > > specs, or people implementing a control-plane should not have to = read > > data-plane specifications. > > > > I think the proposition of moving text that the chairs proposed is = very > > reasonable and greatly improve the quality of the specifications and = therefore > > reduce the risk of misinterpretation and bugs while implementing the = protocolS > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Damien Saucez > > > >> On 4 Jan 2018, at 18:00, Dino Farinacci > wrote: > >> > >> Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? This = was the latest update from email before the year ended. I have made most = of the changes that Luigi suggested or requested. > >> > >> Dino > >> > >> = _______________________________________________ > >> lisp mailing list > >> lisp@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp = > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp = >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail=_54A26568-0E9E-48F8-86B3-B3046D68992B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Albert,


On 9 Jan 2018, at 00:27, Albert = Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi 

As far as I remember we didn=C2=B4t agree on 3 documents, = this does not necessarily mean that it is a bad = idea.

:-)


I still think that SMR should be on 6833bis, it is important = to standardize a control-plane that includes the capability of updating = EID-to-RLOC mappings.

Regarding sections = Multicast, Mobility and Traceroute considerations they could be easily = moved to an OAM document, but it is quite complex to properly = contextualize such sections in a single standalone document. Do they = have value without the context of = 6830bis?

Probably not, but the point is that if you = implement 6830bis you do need to read OAM stuff. 

Obviously the other way around is not true. If you = want to understand LISP OAM you need to have a good knowledge of both = 30bis _AND_ 33bis, _YET_ this does _NOT_ mean we need one single = document for everything.

Romans used = to say "dividi et impera=E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6. 

Ciao

Luigi


In my view they are better = in 6830bis.

I would like to hear other = opinions from the list

Albert

On Mon, = Jan 8, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you think it is = okay to capture the changes we have made and agreed upon so far so we = can submit -08 and wait for other WG members to comment on this = issue?

What you are suggesting is a lot change that what was previously agreed = upon. No one was really in favor of having a third document (your OAM = reference below (3)).

Also the chairs didn=E2=80=99t suggest any changes, it was Luigi (acting = as a document shepherd). I am not sure the same comment came from Joel, = either publicly or privately.

Dino

> On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Dino, The List,
>
> That=E2=80=99s pretty cool to see activity around the document = however I am not sure the proposed
> changes are really addressing the structural problem of the = document.
>
> The current document is a mix between data-plane, control-plane, = and operation questions.
>
> The chairs proposition of re-balancing the text between 30bis, = 33bis and an OAM documents
> is great. It would allow people to go directly to the point they = are interested in.
>
> 1. What goes on the wire: 30bis
> 2. Signalling procedures: 33bis
> 3. Implementation details, management, and troubleshooting: OAM.
>
> So it would mean that in 30bis it would just be all what is = strictly needed to allow
> inter-operability between xTRs, so at the end only packet format = and how to understand
> fields should be there. In this case, we can abstract the xTR as = just a database that
> stores mapping, how mapping are managed in this database is an = implementation
> question that is independent of the protocol itself.
>
> For 33bis, it would just be the format of signalling messages and = how to interpret
> them, when a signal is expected to be triggered.
>
> Finally, in OAM it would be how to implement and manage a LISP = system that is
> constituted of the LISP control-plane proposed in 33bis and the = LISP data-plane in
> 30bis.
>
> To say it clearly: remove from 30bis and 33bis all what is just the = reflect of one
> implementation. Normally these two document should have only what = is strictly
> necessary for people to implement (the way THEY want) a system that = would
> Inter-operate with the others.
>
> If we look at OpenLISP and its control-plane and the deployment of = LISP-Lab
> that we use in production daily, we can see that the data plane and = control plane
> have been implemented independently (and by different teams and = even
> companies) and what we can say is that a large fraction of the text = in 60bis
> has not been used at all for implementing the data-plane, while, on = the contrary
> we had to massively read/use text from 30bis to be able to = implement the
> control-plane. Finally, people that deployed LISP-Lab had to take = content
> from both 30bis and 33bis to be able to have a working environment. = That
> demonstrates that the separation is not done properly as normally = people
> in charge of deploying a network should not have to read the = data-plane
> specs, or people implementing a control-plane should not have to = read
> data-plane specifications.
>
> I think the proposition of moving text that the chairs proposed is = very
> reasonable and greatly improve the quality of the specifications = and therefore
> reduce the risk of misinterpretation and bugs while implementing = the protocolS
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Damien Saucez
>
>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 18:00, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>= wrote:
>>
>> Is the working group okay with me submitting these changes? = This was the latest update from email before the year ended. I have made = most of the changes that Luigi suggested or requested.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>> <rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html>_______________________________________________
>> lisp mailing list
>> lisp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

_______________________________________________
lisp = mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

= --Apple-Mail=_54A26568-0E9E-48F8-86B3-B3046D68992B-- From nobody Tue Jan 9 09:55:32 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331C5129966 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:55:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.56 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.56 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=1.157, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 4IiyOx7Li7Gl for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 C96B9127735 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id r2so8477364pgq.13 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 09:55:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=RfAr6BA4q0O+O+C4zL/ozI8rptdrQbNU7eEkfn4YuYE=; b=RNM1ZCWYYtgvd685A1aUWsNjb46/72lXnoGNK8wOzk+pA1VC9jLfDKpzo/Hvw3sscq rYVs4IF8Ro7s+iUWVI4tEiRZJ+nmdH6uX2RzSoLhgXIdylFXsY+QTtzNxHKFt0IdC6ZY Rb8MwGmzq5/OSjMNrZK4Hj70nz4+WHCo8gduyoyWNHjXXsal/LxRsUSoQcywvzEjM0wg jEYn9VlRpDqAZbNzVD1XFH7Szm5sta260b/FBXsAdF6D2Eu4sJYl4Bha8IPKn83FJXs3 NShshTWbZzJhOCKwHeXBrBT1n9wBmMRc+D84lUo5KTc7f3rFK2n3wqHbYI6LhU8flSUs hyGw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=RfAr6BA4q0O+O+C4zL/ozI8rptdrQbNU7eEkfn4YuYE=; b=J8zSlIruF3MM/16R90mKMoi7KK8al0losJVI3ldPoZ43sgiiM6XkiCSERGpS8eCmRK +dtQLjPPepzedh3c//8jZ95i4kejBftbVKhCu8w7T29E6Yf7rdD77Ifwl/vaRJ0jlZ0x WOQkHxzmlrJz/i6DlIs178Cz0EjEY1vwAdFutVfhlhZau7osXm48yHsetMeD3DxxHd2Z O+/py2MqytX+TpCA7bKMBBT17tpTIg7Nv6y5ZdfMB6gEYWC1QwZhsZC7WsmbIrDzkQzJ q8rNaQPV6coBl574uhEc79jPfHYmmrJycrJVaWQSN9dtxd4z1Gclp4s8iiIO4TPfZOuk itqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLXbV7RNOdBJiSHyNpepusZRuCxRSdWsSeChPi1l+LHBMg9emRM q3SfgimR9cNNses5f2ph4dI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotigkAPqHT0tBYqtN+nQhfSMfl22ZtfW8JF/aCdbgmsFR492gljyUPm5L1n2J4QYC9OeRNdzQ== X-Received: by 10.84.128.74 with SMTP id 68mr6563834pla.228.1515520515137; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 09:55:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 77sm32412091pfh.43.2018.01.09.09.55.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 09:55:14 -0800 (PST) From: Dino Farinacci Message-Id: <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9947AF75-7CFD-4DA1-B244-66A2B4196060" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 09:54:59 -0800 In-Reply-To: <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" To: Luigi Iannone References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 17:55:30 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_9947AF75-7CFD-4DA1-B244-66A2B4196060 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same = arguments.=20 This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. The diff of the changes are included yet again. Dino --Apple-Mail=_9947AF75-7CFD-4DA1-B244-66A2B4196060 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html Content-Type: text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Diff: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07.txt - = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 = = = = = = = = = = = = =
< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07.txt  =  draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt >
=
Network Working = Group D. Farinacci = Network Working Group = D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft = V. Fuller Internet-Draft = V. Fuller
Intended status: = Standards Track D. Meyer = Intended status: Standards Track = D. Meyer
Expires: May 15, 2018 = D. Lewis Expires: July 8, 2018 = D. Lewis
= Cisco Systems = Cisco Systems
= A. Cabellos (Ed.) = A. Cabellos (Ed.)
= UPC/BarcelonaTech = UPC/BarcelonaTech
= November = 11, 2017 = January 4, = 2018
=
= The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol = (LISP)
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 = = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
=
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. The = according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.
map-cache is populated by the LISP Control-Plane = protocol
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
LISP requires = no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay = LISP requires no change to either host = protocol stacks or to underlay
routers and = offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming = and mobility,
among other = features. among other = features.
=
Status of This = Memo Status of This Memo
=
This = Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the = This Internet-Draft is submitted in full = conformance with the
provisions of = BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of = BCP 78 and BCP 79.
=
= 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 May 15, = 2018. This Internet-Draft will = expire on July 8, 2018.
=
Copyright = Notice Copyright Notice
=
Copyright = (c) 2017 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
carefully, as = they describe your rights and restrictions with respect = carefully, as they describe your rights and = restrictions with respect
to this = document. Code Components extracted from this document must = to this document. Code Components extracted = from this document must
include = Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of = include Simplified BSD License text as = described in Section 4.e of
the Trust = Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without = warranty as
described in = the Simplified BSD License. = described in the Simplified BSD License.
=
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 = 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Packet = Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 11
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 = 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. LISP = IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1. = LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. = LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. = Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. = Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. = LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing = with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 = 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets = . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A = Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. = A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. A = Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7.2. = A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Using = Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 = 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation = with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing = Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 = 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing = Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 = 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo = Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 = 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 = 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 = 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Routing = Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 12. = Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. Changing = the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 31 13. = Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. = Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.1. = Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.2. = Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 = 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14. = Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 14. = Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15. Router = Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 = 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16. Mobility = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16. = Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16.1. Slow = Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.2. Fast = Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.3. LISP = Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 = 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 38 17. = LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37
17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17.2. = Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 = 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.3. ISP = Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.3. = ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.4. LISP = Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 = 17.4. LISP Functionality with = Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40
17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
18. = Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18. = Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
18.1. = IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.1. = IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.2. IPv4 = Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 = 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
19. Security = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 = 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 43
20. Network = Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 20. = Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
21. IANA = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.1. LISP = UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22. References = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 44
22.1. = Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 = Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix B. = Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 = Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52 = B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . = 51
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 = . . . . . . . . 53 B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 52
B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 53 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 = . . . . . . . . 52
B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 53 B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52
B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 53 B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' = Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
= Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 52
=
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
attachment = points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between = attachment points. LISP then defines = functions for mapping between
the two = namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic = originated by
devices using = non-routable EIDs for transport across a network devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across = a network
= infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. = LISP
= encapsulation uses a = dynamic form of tunneling where no static
= provisioning is = required or necessary.
=
LISP is an = overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane, = LISP is an overlay protocol that separates = control from data-plane,
this document = specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers this document specifies the data-plane, how = LISP-capable routers
(Tunnel = Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating = them to the
appropriate = location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped = with a cache,
called = map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The map-cache = called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC = mappings. The map-cache
is populated = using the LISP Control-Plane protocol = is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
LISP does not = require changes to either host protocol stack or to LISP does not require changes to either host protocol = stack or to
=
skipping to = change at = page 4, line 31 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 4, line 33 =C2=B6
describes the = LISP architecture. describes the = LISP architecture.
=
2. Requirements = Notation 2. Requirements = Notation
=
The key words = "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", = "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", = "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this = "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", = "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are = to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in = [RFC2119].
=
3. Definition of = Terms 3. Definition of Terms
=
Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses = are an address Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used = to describe an
block assigned from a pool where blocks are not = associated with address = encoding in a packet.= An address family that pertains to
any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular the data-plane. See = [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An = AFI
service provider) and are therefore not topologically = aggregatable value of 0 used in this specification indicates an = unspecified
in the = routing system. encoded address where the = length of the address is 0 octets
= following = the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
=
Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an = address block Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
assigned to a site by each service provider to = which a site refer to the same = IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
connects. Typically, each block is a = sub-block of a service multiple systems at = the same time. An EID or RLOC can be = an
provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) = [RFC4632] block and anycast address in each of their own address spaces.
is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised = into
the global Internet. Traditionally, IP multihoming has = been
implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
visible prefix. LISP uses only topologically = assigned and
aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this =
demonstrably non-scalable = practice.
=
Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 Client-side: = Client-side is a term used in this = document to indicate
[RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel = Router (ETR). An RLOC is a connection initiation attempt by an = EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP
the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to = one site = are the first to get involved in forwarding a packet from = the
or more RLOCs. Typically, = RLOCs are numbered from topologically source EID.
aggregatable blocks that are assigned to = a site at each = point to
which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is = a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
defined by the connectivity of provider = networks, RLOCs can be the inner-header destination address equals the = outer-header
thought of as PA = addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the destination address = used to trigger a Map-Reply by a = decapsulating
same ETR device or to = multiple ETR devices at a site. ETR. In addition, the original packet is = decapsulated and
= delivered to the = destination host if the destination EID is in the
= EID-Prefix range = configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is
= discarded. A = Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping = database
= designs to = "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; = in other
= cases, = Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design
= for details. = When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
= the underlying = routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.
= =
= Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is = a router that accepts an IP
= packet where the = destination address in the "outer" IP header is
= one of its = own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" = header and
= forwards the = packet based on the next IP header found. In
= general, an ETR = receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
= Internet on one = side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
= end-systems on = the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
= be limited = to a router device. A server host can be = the endpoint
= of a LISP tunnel = as well.
=
= EID-to-RLOC = Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global
= distributed = database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
= mappings. Each = potential ETR typically contains a small piece of
= the database: the = EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes
= "behind" the = router. These map to one of the router's own
= globally visible = IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient
= conditions when = the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for
= each EID-Prefix = may not be the same on all ETRs. This has = no
= negative = implications, since a partial set of Locators can be
= used.
=
= EID-to-RLOC = Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally
= short-lived, = on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is
= responsible for = timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC
= mappings. This = cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-
= to-RLOC mappings; = it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and
= relatively small, = while the database is distributed, relatively
= static, and much = more global in scope.
=
= EID-Prefix: An = EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
= allocated to a = site by an address allocation authority. EID-
= Prefixes are = associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix
= = allocations can be broken up into smaller = blocks when an RLOC set
= is to = be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.
=
= End-System: An = end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that = originates
= packets with a = single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The = end-system
= supplies an EID = value for the destination address field of the IP
= header when = communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing
= domain). An = end-system can be a host computer, a = switch or router
= device, or any = network appliance.
=
Endpoint ID = (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or = 128-bit (for
IPv6) value = used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination = address fields of
the first = (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains = the first (most inner) LISP header of a = packet. The host obtains
a = destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address = a destination EID the same way it obtains = a destination address
today, for = example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] today, for example, through a Domain Name System = (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or = Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) = [RFC3261] exchange.
The source = EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms = used to set a
host's = "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet = host's "local" IP address. An EID used = on the public Internet
must have = the same properties as any other IP address used in that = must have the same properties as any = other IP address used in that
manner; = this means, among other things, that it must be globally = manner; this means, among other things, = that it must be globally
unique. An = EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block unique. 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 = associated with the site where the host = is located. An EID can be
used by a = host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY = used by a host to refer to other hosts. = Note that EID blocks MAY
be assigned = in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent = of the network
topology, = to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping = database. In
addition, = an EID block assigned to a site may have = site-local addition, an EID = block assigned to a site MAY have = site-local
structure = (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure = structure (subnetting) for routing within = the site; this structure
is not = visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit = is not visible to the global routing = system. In theory, the bit
string that = represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC string that represents an EID for one device can = represent an RLOC
for a = different device. As the architecture is = realized, if a for a = different device. When used in discussions with other
given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it = must refer to the
same entity in both cases. When used in = discussions with other
Locator/ID = separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will = be called an
"LEID". = Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer = "LEID". Throughout this document, any = references to "EID" refer
to an = LEID. to an LEID.
=
EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of = EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation = authority. EID-
Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC = addresses that make up
a "database mapping". EID-Prefix allocations can = be broken up
into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be = associated with the
larger EID-Prefix block. A globally routed = address block (whether
PI or PA) is not inherently an EID-Prefix. A = globally routed
address block MAY be used by its assignee as an = EID block. The
converse is not supported. That is, a site that = receives an
explicitly allocated EID-Prefix may not use that = EID-Prefix as a
globally routed prefix. This would require = coordination and
cooperation with the entities managing the = mapping infrastructure.
Once this has been done, that block could be = removed from the
globally routed IP system, if other suitable = transition and access
mechanisms are in place. Discussion of such = transition and access
mechanisms can be found in [RFC6832] and = [RFC7215].
End-system: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 = device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The = end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address = field of the IP
header when communicating globally (i.e., outside = of its routing
domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a = switch or router
device, or any network appliance. =
= =
Ingress Tunnel = Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router = that resides in a
LISP site. = Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the = LISP site to
= destinations outside of the site are candidates for = encapsulation destinations = outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. = The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination = address as an EID
and = performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then = and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping = lookup. The router then
prepends an = "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its = routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC = space) in the source address field and the result of the = the RLOC space) in the source address = field and the result of the
mapping = lookup in the destination address field. Note that this = mapping lookup in the destination address = field. Note that this
destination = RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy = device that has
better = knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer = to the
=
skipping to = change at = page 6, line 33 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 7, line 5 =C2=B6
end-systems = on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets end-systems on one side and sends = LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the = Internet on the other side. = toward the Internet on the other side.
=
= Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header = for Specifically, when a service = provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic = Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also = Traffic Engineering purposes, the router = that does this is also
regarded as = an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR = uses can be based
on the = outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied = on the outer destination address (the = originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or = the inner destination address (the originating host's RLOC) or the inner destination address (the = originating host's
supplied = EID). supplied EID).
=
TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a = service provider LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this = document to refer
network that prepends an additional LISP = header for Traffic to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 = header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
Engineering purposes. specific 8-octet = header that follow the UDP header and that = an ITR
prepends or an ETR strips.
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a = router that accepts an IP =
packet where the destination address in = the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the = "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header = found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP = packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP = packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality = does not have to
be limited to a router = device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as = well.
TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed = in a service provider =
network that strips an outer LISP header = for Traffic Engineering
purposes.
xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when = direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. = "xTR" refers to the
router that is the = tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR = can be located at
the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR = and ETR
functionality at the CE router. =
Re-encapsulating Tunneling in RTRs: = Re-encapsulating Tunneling
occurs when an RTR = (Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router) acts like an
ETR to remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend = a new
LISP header. Doing this allows a packet to be = re-routed by the
RTR without adding the overhead of additional = tunnel headers. Any
references to tunnels in this specification refer = to dynamic
encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically = configured. When
using multiple mapping database systems, care = must be taken to not
create re-encapsulation loops through = misconfiguration.
=
LISP Router: = A LISP router is a router that performs the functions LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that = performs the functions
of any or = all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, = Proxy-ITR (PITR),
or = Proxy-ETR (PETR). or Proxy-ETR = (PETR).
=
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is = generally LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers = in an edge network that are
short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that = stores, tracks, and is = under a single technical administration. LISP = routers that reside
responsible for timing out and otherwise = validating EID-to-RLOC = in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
mappings. This cache is distinct from the full = "database" of EID- edge network from the core = network.
to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the = ITR(s), and
relatively small, while the database is = distributed, relatively
static, and much more global in = scope.
EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is = a global
distributed database that contains all known = EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains = a small piece of
the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the = EID-Prefixes
"behind" the router. These map to one of the = router's own
globally visible IP addresses. Note that there = MAY be transient
conditions when the EID-Prefix for the = site and Locator-Set for
each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. = This has no
negative implications, since a partial set of Locators = can be
used.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs = when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers = of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or = other re-routing
as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
header. Any references to tunnels in this = specification refer to
dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are = never statically
configured.
LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this = document to refer
to the = outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a = LISP-
specific 8-octet header that follow the = UDP header and that an ITR =
prepends or an ETR strips. =
=
Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term = used to describe an Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): = Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains = to LISP = header. They are used by ITRs to = inform ETRs about the up/
the data-plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI down status of all ETRs at = the local site. These bits are used as
value of 0 used in = this specification indicates an unspecified a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
encoded address where the length of the = address is 0 octets status. The LSBs can be = verified by use of one of the Locator
following the 16-bit AFI value of = 0. = reachability algorithms described in Section 10.
=
Negative = Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a = Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping = entry, also known as a
negative = cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix = negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC = entry where an EID-Prefix
is = advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set = is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. = That is, the Locator-Set
for the = EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count = for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has = an encoded Locator count
of 0. This = type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from of 0. This type of entry could be used to = describe a prefix from
a non-LISP = site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the = mapping database.
There are a = set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a There are a set of well-defined actions that are = encoded in a
Negative = Map-Reply. Negative = Map-Reply.
=
Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data = packet where Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are = an address block
the inner-header destination address equals the = outer-header assigned to a site by each service = provider to which a site
destination address used to trigger a = Map-Reply by a = decapsulating connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
ETR. In addition, the original packet is = decapsulated and provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) = [RFC4632] block and
delivered to the = destination host if the destination EID is in the = is aggregated = into the larger block before being = advertised into
EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. = Otherwise, the packet is the underlay network. Traditionally, IP = multihoming has been
discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the = mapping database implemented by each = multihomed site acquiring its own globally
designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other = visible = prefix.
cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping = database design
for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending = Map-Requests on
the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must = be advertised.
However, this is discouraged if the core = is to scale by having =
less EID-Prefixes stored in the core router's = routing tables.
=
Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. = A Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are = an address
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of = non-LISP sites that block assigned from a pool where blocks are not = associated with
send packets to destinations at LISP = sites. = any particular location in the network (e.g., from a = particular
= service = provider) and are therefore not = topologically aggregatable
= in the routing = system.
=
Proxy-ETR = (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A = Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and = described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts = like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of = LISP sites that
send = packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP = sites.
=
Route-returnability: Route-returnability is an = assumption that the Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in = [RFC6832]. A
= PITR acts like an = ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
= send packets to = destinations at LISP sites.
=
= Recursive Tunneling: = Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
= more than one = LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
= be employed to = implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
= as needed. When = this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
= is added, and the = original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
= = header.
=
= Re-Encapsulating = Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to
= remove a LISP = header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
= header. This is = known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this
= allows a packet = to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the
= overhead of = additional tunnel headers. Any references to tunnels
= in this = specification refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; = they
= are never = statically configured. When using multiple mapping
= database systems, = care must be taken to not create re-
= encapsulation = loops through misconfiguration.
=
= = Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that = the
underlying = routing system will deliver packets to the destination. = underlying routing system will deliver = packets to the destination.
When = combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and When combined with a nonce that is provided by a = sender and
returned by = a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data = insertion. A
= route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent = with route-returnability check = is verified when a message is sent with
a nonce, = another message is returned with the same nonce, and the = a nonce, another message is returned with = the same nonce, and the
destination = of the original message appears as the source of the destination of the original message appears as the = source of the
returned = message. returned = message.
=
LISP site: LISP site is a = set of routers in an edge network that are Routing Locator (RLOC): An = RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or = IPv6
under a single technical administration. LISP = routers that reside = [RFC8200] = address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). = An RLOC is
in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the the output of an = EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one
edge network from the core = network. = or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable
blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which = it
Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to = indicate = attaches to the underlay network; = where the topology is defined by
a connection initiation attempt by an EID. The ITR(s) at the LISP = the connectivity of provider networks. Multiple = RLOCs can be
site are the first to get involved in = obtaining database Map-Cache assigned to the = same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a
entries by sending Map-Request = messages. site.
=
Server-side: = Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate = Server-side: Server-side is a term used in = this document to indicate
that a = connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a that a connection initiation attempt is being = accepted for a
= destination EID. The ETR(s) at the destination = LISP site may be = destination EID.
the first to send Map-Replies to the source site = initiating the
connection. The ETR(s) at this destination site = can obtain
mappings by gleaning information from = Map-Requests, Data-Probes,
or encapsulated packets.
=
Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are = present in the TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR = that is deployed in a service = provider
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform = ETRs about the up/ network that strips an outer LISP header for = Traffic Engineering
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These = bits are used as purposes.
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path = reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one = of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section = 10.
=
Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this = document to TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an = ITR that is deployed in a service = provider
refer to the same IPv4 or = IPv6 address configured and used on network that prepends an additional LISP header = for Traffic
multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an Engineering purposes.
anycast address in each of their own address = spaces.
= xTR: An xTR is a = reference to an ITR or ETR when direction = of data
= flow is not part = of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
= router that is = the tunnel endpoint and is used = synonymously with
= the term "Tunnel = Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
= the Customer Edge = (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
= functionality at = the CE router.
=
4. Basic = Overview 4. Basic Overview
=
One key = concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they = One key concept of LISP is that end-systems = operate the same way they
do today. The = IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for = tracking sockets and
connections, = and for sending and receiving packets, do not change. connections, and for sending and receiving packets, = do not change.
In LISP = terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called = Endpoint
Identifiers = (EIDs). Identifiers (EIDs).
=
Routers = continue to forward packets based on IP destination Routers continue to forward packets based on IP = destination
=
skipping to = change at = page 10, line 38 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 10, line = 15 =C2=B6
o Other types = of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see = [RFC8060] for
further = information. further = information.
=
o LISP = routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See = o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing = Locator addresses. See
details in = Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by = "mostly".
=
o RLOCs are = always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, = preferably
= topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless = topologically oriented addresses from = provider CIDR (Classless
= Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. = Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
=
o When a = router originates packets, it may use as a = source address o When a router = originates packets, it MAY use as a source = address
either an = EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host = (e.g., when
terminating = a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), terminating a transport session such as Secure = SHell (SSH),
TELNET, = or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it may = TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
use an EID = that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that = purpose. An EID
that = identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC; = that identifies the router as a host MUST = NOT be used as an RLOC;
an EID is = only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP = an EID is only routable within the scope = of a site. A typical BGP
= configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage = where configuration might = demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
a router = could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions = a router could use its "host-like" EID to = terminate iBGP sessions
to other = routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to = to other routers in a site while at the = same time using RLOCs to
terminate = eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the = site.
=
o Packets = with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- = o Packets with EIDs in them are not = expected to be delivered end-to-
end in the = absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping = operation. They are
expected to = be used locally for intra-site communication or to be expected to be used locally for intra-site = communication or to be
= encapsulated for inter-site communication. encapsulated for inter-site communication.
=
o = EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a = manner o EID-Prefixes are likely = to be hierarchically assigned in a manner
that is = optimized for administrative convenience and to facilitate = that is optimized for administrative = convenience and to facilitate
scaling = of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. The = hierarchy is scaling of = the EID-to-RLOC mapping database.
based on an address allocation hierarchy that is = independent of
the network topology.
=
o EIDs = may also be structured (subnetted) in a = manner suitable for o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner = suitable for
local = routing within an Autonomous System (AS). local routing within an Autonomous System = (AS).
=
An additional = LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets = by a TE-ITR
when = re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential = when re-routing of the path for a packet is = desired. A potential
use-case for = this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs = to perform
Traffic = Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such = Traffic Engineering for packets flowing = through its network. In such
a situation, = termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an = a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", = an ISP transit acts as an
additional = ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new = prepended header
would be = either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic = would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP = (along an intra-ISP traffic
engineered = path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic = engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another = ISP (an inter-ISP traffic
=
skipping to = change at = page 12, line 17 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 11, line = 37 =C2=B6
was not = using LISP. was not using = LISP.
=
o Each site = is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has = an address
(RLOC) = assigned from the service provider address block for each = (RLOC) assigned from the service provider = address block for each
provider to = which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is = attached.
=
o The ITR(s) = and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to = the source and
= destination, respectively, but the source and destination can = be destination, respectively, = but the source and destination can be
located = anywhere in the LISP site. = located anywhere in the LISP site.
=
o Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database system by = using the o A Map-Request = is sent for an external destination when the
LISP control-plane protocol documented = in destination is not = found in the forwarding table or matches a
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. A Map-Request = is sent for an external default = route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping = database
= destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding = system by using = the LISP control-plane protocol documented in
table or = matches a default route. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
o Map-Replies = are sent on the underlying routing system topology o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing = system topology
using the = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol. using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane = protocol.
=
Client = host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate = with server
= host2.xyz.example.com: = host2.xyz.example.com:
=
1. = host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to = 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a = TCP connection to
= host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup = on
= host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This = host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record = is returned. This
=
skipping to = change at = page 13, line 35 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 13, line 8 =C2=B6
of the = addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to = of the addresses, strips the LISP = header, and forwards packets to
the = attached destination host. the = attached destination host.
=
9. In order = to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse 9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup = in the reverse
direction, = an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache = entry that maps
the source = EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source the source EID (inner-header source IP address) = to the source
RLOC = (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet. = RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in = a received LISP packet.
Such a = cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping and only Such a cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping = and only
contains a = single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete contains a single RLOC for the EID in question. = More complete
= information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by = sending information about = additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending
a LISP = Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR may a = LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY
also = influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC. = also influence the decision the other = makes in selecting an RLOC.
=
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details 5. LISP = Encapsulation Details
=
Since = additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes = Since additional tunnel headers are = prepended, the packet becomes
larger and can = exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed = from the ITR to
the ETR. It = is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do = not get
fragmented as = they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. = Instead, the packet
is dropped and = an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is is dropped and an ICMP = Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is
returned to = the source. returned to the = source.
=
This specification RECOMMENDS that = implementations provide support = In the case when fragmentation is needed, = this specification
for one of = the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two = RECOMMENDS that implementations provide = support for one of the
existing = schemes are detailed in Section 7. = proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two existing = schemes
= are detailed in Section 7.
=
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].
=
skipping to = change at = page 14, line 16 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 14, line 4 =C2=B6
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].
=
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 |Type of Service| = Total Length | / = |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| = Total Length |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | = | | Identification |Flags| = Fragment Offset |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to = Live | Protocol =3D 17 | Header Checksum | = OH | Time to Live | Protocol =3D 17 | = Header Checksum |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Source Routing Locator | | | Source Routing Locator = |
\ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = Destination Routing Locator | \ | Destination Routing Locator = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | = Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 | = / | Source Port =3D xxxx | = Dest Port =3D 4341 |
UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP = Checksum |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L = |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| = Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | = Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits = |
P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ = |Version| IHL |Type of Service| = Total Length | / = |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| = Total Length |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | = | | Identification |Flags| = Fragment Offset |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to = Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header = Checksum |
| = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Source EID | | | Source EID = |
\ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = Destination EID | \ | Destination EID = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
=
IHL =3D = IP-Header-Length IHL =3D = IP-Header-Length
=
5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format 5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 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| Traffic Class | Flow = Label | / = |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow = Label |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | = Payload Length | Next Header=3D17| Hop Limit | = | | Payload Length | Next = Header=3D17| Hop Limit |
v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = | | = |
O + = + O + = +
u | = | u | = |
t + = Source Routing Locator + t + Source Routing Locator = +
e | = | e | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
=
skipping to = change at = page 15, line 38 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 15, line = 23 =C2=B6
\ | = | \ | = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | = Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 | = / | Source Port =3D xxxx | = Dest Port =3D 4341 |
UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | = UDP Length | UDP Checksum | \ | UDP Length | UDP = Checksum |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L = |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| = Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | = Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits = |
P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ = |Version| Traffic Class | Flow = Label | / = |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow = Label |
/ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | = Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | = / | Payload Length | Next = Header | Hop Limit |
v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = | | = |
I + = + I + = +
n | = | n | = |
n + = Source EID + n + Source EID = +
e | = | e | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
=
skipping to = change at = page 16, line 4 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 15, line = 38 =C2=B6
I + = + I + = +
n | = | n | = |
n + = Source EID + n + Source EID = +
e | = | e | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
H = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= H = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | = | d | = |
r + = + r + = +
| = | | = |
=
^ + = Destination EID + ^ + Destination EID = +
\ | = | \ | = |
\ + = + \ + = +
\ | = | \ | = |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
=
5.3. Tunnel = Header Field Descriptions 5.3. Tunnel = Header Field Descriptions
=
Inner Header = (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram Inner Header (IH): The inner header is = the header on the
received = from the originating host. The source and = destination IP datagram = received from the originating host [RFC0791] = [RFC8200]
addresses = are EIDs [RFC0791] [RFC8200]. = [RFC2474]. = The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.
=
Outer Header: = (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header = prepended by an
ITR. The = address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained = from the ingress
router's = EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" = router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP = protocol number is "UDP (17)"
from = [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment = (DF) bit
'Flags' = field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in = Sections 7.1 and
= 7.2. 7.2.
=
UDP Header: = The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when = UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR = selected source port when
= encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash = encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 = for details on the hash
algorithm = used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the = algorithm used to select a source port = based on the 5-tuple of the
inner = header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known = inner header. The destination port MUST = be set to the well-known
= IANA-assigned port value 4341. = IANA-assigned port value 4341.
=
UDP Checksum: = The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be = transmitted as zero
by an ITR = for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 = encapsulation by an ITR for = either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 = encapsulation
[RFC6935] = [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is [RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero = UDP checksum is
received by = an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet = for
= decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the = UDP decapsulation. When an ITR = transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
checksum, = it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field. checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value = in this field.
When an ETR = receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP = checksum, it MAY
choose to = verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform choose to verify the checksum value. If it = chooses to perform
such = verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be = such verification, and the verification = fails, the packet MUST be
silently = dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to = perform the
= verification, or performs the verification successfully, the = verification, or performs the = verification successfully, the
packet MUST = be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The = handling of UDP
=
skipping = to change at page 19, line = 43 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 19, line = 27 =C2=B6
Copying the = Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: = first, it
preserves the = distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet = to travel;
second, and = more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping = second, and more importantly, it provides = for suppression of looping
packets in the = event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated = tunnels due to
= misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling = for misconfiguration. See Section = 18.3 for TTL exception handling for
traceroute = packets. traceroute = packets.
=
The Explicit = Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field = occupies bits 6
and 7 of both = the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and = the IPv6 'Traffic
Class' field = [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires = special treatment
in order to = avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. in order to avoid discarding indications of = congestion [RFC3168]. An
ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' = field from the inner ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit = 'ECN' field from the inner
header to the = outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST = copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field = from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. = 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header = to the new outer header.
If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication = codepoint (the
value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR value = is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/
= decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped = outer = PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the = stripped
header to = the surviving inner header that is used to forward the outer header to the surviving inner header that is = used to forward
packet = beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications = the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE
when a = packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes = indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and
marked with = a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the
= endpoints. tunnel = endpoints.
=
6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache 6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
=
ITRs and PITRs = maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred = as LISP EID-to-
RLOC = Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator = RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from = EID-prefixes to locator
sets. The = cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to = sets. The cache is used to encapsulate = packets from the EID space to
the = corresponding RLOC network attachment point. the corresponding RLOC network attachment = point.
=
When an = ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to = When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from = inside of the LISP site to
destinations = outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the = destinations outside of the site a = longest-prefix match lookup of the
=
skipping = to change at page 20, line = 40 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 20, line = 27 =C2=B6
information = about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP = reachability
information = mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see information mechanisms to determine the reachability = of RLOCs, see
Section 10 for = the specific mechanisms. Section 10 = for the specific mechanisms.
=
7. Dealing with = Large Encapsulated Packets 7. Dealing = with Large Encapsulated Packets
=
This section = proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed = This section proposes two mechanisms to deal = with packets that exceed
the path MTU = between the ITR and ETR. the path = MTU between the ITR and ETR.
=
It is left to = the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful It is left to the implementor to decide if the = stateless or stateful
mechanism = should be implemented. Both or neither = can be used, since mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be = used, since
it is a local = decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to = deal with MTU
issues, and = sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. issues, and sites can interoperate with differing = mechanisms.
=
Both stateless = and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to = Re-encapsulating
and Recursive = Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below = referring to an ITR
also apply to = a TE-ITR. also apply to a = TE-ITR.
=
7.1. A Stateless = Solution to MTU Handling 7.1. A = Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
=
An ITR = stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as = An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU = issues is described as
=
skipping = to change at page 21, line = 19 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 20, line = 49 =C2=B6
=
1. Define H = to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer = header an ITR
prepends = to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and = LISP header
= lengths. lengths.
=
2. Define L = to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the = maximum-sized packet
an ITR can = send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for = the ITR or any
= intermediate routers to fragment the packet. intermediate routers to fragment the = packet.
=
3. Define an = architectural constant S for the maximum size of a 3. Define an architectural constant S for the = maximum size of a
packet, = in octets, an ITR must receive from the = source so the packet, in = octets, an ITR MUST receive from the = source so the
effective = MTU can be met. That is, L =3D S + H. = effective MTU can be met. That is, L =3D S + H.
=
When an ITR = receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H = When an ITR receives a packet from a = site-facing interface and adds H
octets worth = of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size = greater than L
octets = (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets = octets (meaning the received packet size was = greater than S octets
from the = source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the = from the source), it resolves the MTU issue = by first splitting the
original = packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then = original packet into 2 equal-sized = fragments. A LISP header is then
prepended to = each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments prepended to each fragment. The size of the = encapsulated fragments
is then (S/2 + = H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's = estimate of the path
MTU between = the ITR and its correspondent ETR. = MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.
=
skipping = to change at page 23, line = 14 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 22, line = 43 =C2=B6
=
When an ETR = decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID = from the LISP
header is used = as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table header is used as a table identifier to locate the = forwarding table
to use for the = inner destination EID lookup. to = use for the inner destination EID lookup.
=
For example, = an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a = For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN = identifier could be used as a
24-bit = Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case = 24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] = for LISP VPN use-case
= details. details.
=
The Instance = ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT = The Instance ID that is stored in the = mapping database when LISP-DDT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used is 32 bits in = length. That means the [RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That = means the control-plane
= control-plane can store more instances than a given data-plane = can can store more instances than = a given data-plane can use. Multiple
use. = Multiple data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as = data-planes can use the same 32-bit space = as long as the low-order 24
the = low-order 24 bits don't overlap among xTRs. bits don't overlap among xTRs.
=
9. Routing = Locator Selection 9. Routing Locator = Selection
=
Both the = client-side and server-side may need = control over the Both the = client-side and server-side MAY need = control over the
selection of = RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is selection of RLOCs for conversations between them. = This control is
achieved by = manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID- = achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and = 'Weight' fields in EID-
to-RLOC = Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be = to-RLOC Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, = RLOC information MAY be
gleaned from = received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC = Map-Request
= messages. messages.
=
The following = are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the The following are different scenarios for choosing = RLOCs and the
controls that = are available: controls that are = available:
=
o The = server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use = o The server-side returns one RLOC. The = client-side can only use
=
skipping = to change at page 24, line = 48 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 24, line = 34 =C2=B6
stored in the = mapping database system provides reachability stored in the mapping database system provides = reachability
information = for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not = part of the
mapping system = and is determined using one or more of the Routing mapping system and is determined using one or more of = the Routing
Locator = reachability algorithms described in the next section. Locator reachability algorithms described in the next = section.
=
10. Routing = Locator Reachability 10. Routing = Locator Reachability
=
Several = mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently = Several mechanisms for determining RLOC = reachability are currently
= defined: defined:
=
1. An ETR = may examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the = LISP header of 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP = header of
an = encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is = an encapsulated data packet received = from an ITR. If the ETR is
also = acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original = also acting as an ITR and has traffic to = return to the original
ITR site, = it can use this status information to help select an ITR site, it can use this status information to = help select an
= RLOC. RLOC.
=
2. An ITR = may receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or = Host 2. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or = Host
= Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates = that Unreachable message for an = RLOC it is using. This indicates that
the RLOC = is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP = messages may
not be = desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them = completely.
= Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices = Implementations are encouraged to follow = current best practices
in = treating these conditions. in = treating these conditions.
=
3. An ITR = that participates in the global routing system can 3. An ITR that participates in the global routing = system can
determine = that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base = determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP = Routing Information Base
(RIB) = route exists that matches the RLOC IP address. (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP = address.
=
4. An ITR = may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable = message from a 4. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message = from a
= destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use = destination host. This occurs if an ITR = attempts to use
= interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a = interworking [RFC6832] and = LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
= non-LISP-capable site. = non-LISP-capable site.
=
5. An ITR = may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in = response to a 5. An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response = to a
previously = sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of = the Map-Reply is
likely up, = since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the likely up, since the ETR was able to send the = Map-Reply to the
= ITR. ITR.
=
6. When an = ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from = an ITR, the
source = RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. source RLOC from the outer header of the packet = is likely up.
=
7. An ITR/ETR = pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability = algorithms
described = in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing. described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or = RLOC-Probing.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 26, line = 17 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 26, line = 6 =C2=B6
=
When an ETR = decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for = any change in
the = 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the = the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit = goes from 1 to 0, the
ETR, if acting = also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from = encapsulating
packets to an = RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It = will only resume
using that = RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a = using that RLOC if the corresponding = Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
value of 1. = Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with = a Locator-Set
per = EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the = per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator = becomes unreachable, the
= Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in = the Locator-Status-Bit that = corresponds to that Locator's position in the
list returned = by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to = zero for that
particular = EID-Prefix. particular EID-Prefix. = Refer to Section 19 for security = related
= issues regarding = Locator-Status-Bits.
=
When ITRs at = the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, = the IGP can
still be used = to determine the reachability of Locators, provided still be used to determine the reachability of = Locators, provided
they are = injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 = they are injected into the IGP. This is = typically done when a /32
address is = configured on a loopback interface. = address is configured on a loopback interface.
=
When ITRs = receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host = Unreachable
messages as a = method to determine unreachability, they will refrain messages as a method to determine unreachability, = they will refrain
from using = Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map- from using Locators that are described in Locator = lists of Map-
Replies. = However, using this approach is unreliable because many = Replies. However, using this approach is = unreliable because many
=
skipping = to change at page 27, line = 45 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 27, line = 36 =C2=B6
E-bit cleared. = The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and = knows that the
path to and = from the ETR is up. path to and = from the ETR is up.
=
The ITR will = set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while = The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for = every packet it sends while
in the = echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process = in the echo-nonce-request state. The time = the ITR waits to process
the echoed = nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is the echoed nonce before it determines the path is = unreachable is
variable and = is a choice left for the implementation. variable and is a choice left for the = implementation.
=
If the ITR is = receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does = not see the
nonce echoed = while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request = state, then the
path to the = ETR is unreachable. This decision may be = overridden by path to the ETR is = unreachable. This decision MAY be = overridden by
other Locator = reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR = determines that
the path to = the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another = Locator for
that = EID-Prefix. that = EID-Prefix.
=
Note that = "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST = Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms = here. Both devices MUST
be = implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce = be implementing both ITR and ETR = functionality for the echo nonce
mechanism to = operate. mechanism to = operate.
=
The ITR and = ETR may both go into the = echo-nonce-request state at the = The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the = echo-nonce-request state at the
same time. = The number of packets sent or the time during which echo = same time. The number of packets sent or = the time during which echo
nonce requests = are sent is an implementation-specific setting. nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific = setting.
However, when = an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request = state, it can echo
the ETR's = nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and = the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets = that it encapsulates and
subsequently = continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request = packets.
=
This mechanism = does not completely solve the forward path This mechanism does not completely solve the forward = path
reachability = problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the = reachability problem, as traffic may be = unidirectional. That is, the
ETR = receiving traffic at a site may not be the = same device as an ITR ETR = receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the = same device as an ITR
that transmits = traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is that transmits traffic from that site, or the = site-to-site traffic is
unidirectional = so there is no ITR returning traffic. = unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.
=
The echo-nonce = algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if = one side sets the
E-bit and the = other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the E-bit and the other side is not enabled for = echo-noncing, then the
echoing of the = nonce does not occur and the requesting side may echoing of the nonce does not occur and the = requesting side may
erroneously = consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set = erroneously consider the Locator = unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set
the E-bit in = an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it = knows the ETR is
enabled for = echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC- = enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed = by the E-bit in the RLOC-
probe = Map-Reply message. probe Map-Reply = message.
=
Note that other Locator reachability mechanisms are= being researched Note = other Locator Reachability mechanisms can = be used to compliment
and can be used to compliment or even = override the echo nonce or even = override the echo nonce algorithm. See the next section for
algorithm. = See the next section for an example of control-plane an example of control-plane probing.
= probing.
=
10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm 10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm
=
RLOC-Probing = is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the = RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR = can use to determine the
reachability = status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a reachability status of one or more Locators that it = has cached in a
Map-Cache = entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request = and Map-Reply
messages is = used for RLOC-Probing. messages is = used for RLOC-Probing.
=
RLOC-Probing = is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an = RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on = a timer basis, where an
ITR or PITR = will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to = a locator
address from = one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as = address from one of its own locator = addresses. A Map-Request used as
an RLOC-probe = is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a = Map-Server or to
the mapping = database system as one would when soliciting mapping the mapping database system as one would when = soliciting mapping
data. The EID = record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is = the EID-Prefix of
the = Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR may include a = the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR MAY include a
mapping data = record for its own database mapping information that mapping data record for its own database mapping = information that
contains the = local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes = contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs = for its site. RLOC-probes
are sent = periodically using a jittered timer interval. are sent periodically using a jittered timer = interval.
=
When an ETR = receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it = When an ETR receives a Map-Request message = with the probe-bit set, it
returns a = Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of = returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. = The source address of
the Map-Reply = is set according to the procedure described in the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure = described in
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain = mapping [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. = The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping
data for the = EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides = data for the EID-Prefix contained in the = Map-Request. This provides
the = opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get = the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that = sent the RLOC-probe to get
=
skipping = to change at page 29, line = 27 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 29, line = 14 =C2=B6
reachable or = has become unreachable, thus providing a robust reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a = robust
mechanism for = switching to using another Locator from the cached mechanism for switching to using another Locator from = the cached
Locator. = RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT) = Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide = rough Round-Trip Time (RTT)
estimates = between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network = estimates between a pair of Locators, which = can be useful for network
management = purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The = management purposes as well as for selecting = low delay paths. The
major = disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control = major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the = number of control
messages = required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those = messages required and the amount of = bandwidth used to obtain those
benefits, = especially if the requirement for failure detection times = benefits, especially if the requirement for = failure detection times
is very = small. is very small.
=
Continued research and testing will attempt to = characterize the
tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message = overhead.
= =
11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site 11. = EID Reachability within a LISP Site
=
A site may be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The = hosts and A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The = hosts and
infrastructure = within a site will be addressed using one or more EID- infrastructure within a site will be addressed using = one or more EID-
Prefixes that = are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant = ETRs in the
mapping = system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose = mapping system. One possible failure mode = is for an ETR to lose
reachability = to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site. = reachability to one or more of the = EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this = occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the = When this occurs when the ETR sends = Map-Replies, it can clear the
R-bit = associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an = R-bit associated with its own Locator. And = when the ETR is also an
ITR, it can = clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the = encapsulation data
= header. header.
=
It is = recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site = It is recognized that there are no simple = solutions to the site
partitioning = problem because it is hard to know which part of the partitioning problem because it is hard to know which = part of the
EID-Prefix = range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub- = EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which = Locators can reach any sub-
ranges of = the EID-Prefixes. This problem is under = investigation with ranges = of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem
the expectation that experiments will tell us = more. Note that this = introduced by the LISP architecture. The problem exists today when = a
is not a new = problem introduced by the LISP architecture. The multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its = reachability upstream.
problem = exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its =
reachability = upstream.
=
12. Routing = Locator Hashing 12. Routing Locator = Hashing
=
When an ETR = provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to When an = ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message
a requesting = ITR, the Locator-Set for the EID-Prefix may = contain that = is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR, the = Locator-Set
different = Priority values for each locator address. When more than = for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values
one best = Priority Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load- for = each locator address. When more than one best Priority Locator
share traffic against the corresponding = Locators. exists, the ITR can = decide how to load-share traffic against = the
= corresponding Locators.
=
The = following hash algorithm may be used by an = ITR to select a The following hash = algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select = a
Locator for a = packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping: Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the = EID-to-RLOC mapping:
=
1. Either a = source and destination address hash or the traditional 1. Either a source and destination address hash or = the traditional
5-tuple = hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash includes = 5-tuple hash can be used. The = traditional 5-tuple hash includes
the source = and destination addresses; source and destination TCP, the source and destination addresses; source and = destination TCP,
UDP, or = Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers; = UDP, or Stream Control Transmission = Protocol (SCTP) port numbers;
and the IP = protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 = next-protocol fields of
a packet = that a host originates from within a LISP site. When a = a packet that a host originates from = within a LISP site. When a
packet is = not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the = source and
= destination addresses only from the header are used to compute = destination addresses only from the = header are used to compute
=
skipping = to change at page 34, line = 6 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 33, line = 30 =C2=B6
Replies. To = avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a = third party, a
sender of an = SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. = If an ITR
receives an = SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is = not in the
Locator-Set = for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map- = Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, = then the responding Map-
Request MUST = be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database = Request MUST be sent with an EID destination = to the mapping database
system. Since = the mapping database system is a more secure way to system. Since the mapping database system is a more = secure way to
reach an = authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the = reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver = the Map-Request to the
authoritative = source of the mapping data. = authoritative source of the mapping data.
=
When an ITR = receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not = When an ITR receives an SMR-based = Map-Request for which it does not
have a = cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it MAY not send = have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send
an SMR-invoked = Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur = when an ETR
sends SMR = messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored = sends SMR messages to all Locators in the = Locator-Set it has stored
in its = map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be = in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that = receive the SMR may not be
sending = packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs = sending packets to the site. There is no = point in updating the ITRs
until they = need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to = until they need to send, in which case they = will send Map-Requests to
obtain a = Map-Cache entry. obtain a Map-Cache = entry.
=
13.3. Database = Map-Versioning 13.3. Database = Map-Versioning
=
When there is = unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and When there is unidirectional packet flow between an = ITR and ETR, and
=
skipping = to change at page 35, line = 52 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 35, line = 26 =C2=B6
few = implementation techniques can be used to incrementally = implement few implementation = techniques can be used to incrementally implement
LISP: = LISP:
=
o When a = tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer = o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is = received by an ETR, the outer
destination = address may not be the address of the router. This destination address may not be the address of the = router. This
makes it = challenging for the control plane to get packets from the = makes it challenging for the control = plane to get packets from the
hardware. = This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding hardware. This may be mitigated by creating = special Forwarding
Information = Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served Information Base (FIB) entries for the = EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
by the ETR = (those for which the router provides an RLOC by the ETR (those for which the router provides an = RLOC
= translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag = indicating translation). These = FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
that = control-plane processing should be = performed. The forwarding that = control-plane processing SHOULD be = performed. The forwarding
logic of = testing for particular IP protocol number values is not = logic of testing for particular IP = protocol number values is not
necessary. = There are a few proven cases where no changes to necessary. There are a few proven cases where no = changes to
existing = deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data- = existing deployed hardware were needed to = support the LISP data-
= plane. plane.
=
o On an ITR, = prepending a new IP header consists of adding more o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of = adding more
octets to a = MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the = string as part
of the = outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support = of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. = Routers that support
Generic = Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 = Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) = tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
tunneling = [RFC3056] may already support this action. tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this = action.
=
skipping = to change at page 38, line = 15 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 37, line = 40 =C2=B6
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods 17. = LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods
=
This section = will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs = can be placed
in the network = and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario. in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of = each scenario.
For a more = detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer = For a more detailed networkd design = deployment recommendation, refer
to = [RFC7215]. to [RFC7215].
=
There are two = basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: = centralized
versus = distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating = versus distributed caches; and flat, = Recursive, or Re-encapsulating
Tunneling. = When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, = Tunneling. When deciding on centralized = versus distributed caching,
the = following issues should be = considered: the following issues = SHOULD be considered:
=
o Are the = xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all = o Are the xTRs spread out so that the = caches are spread across all
the = memories of each router? A centralized cache is when an ITR = the memories of each router? A = centralized cache is when an ITR
keeps a = cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. The packet = keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is = encapsulating to. The packet
takes a = direct path to the destination Locator. A distributed takes a direct path to the destination Locator. A = distributed
cache is = when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel = cache is when an ITR needs help from = other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel
Routers = (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries for = Routers (RTRs) because it does not store = all the cache entries for
the EIDs it = is encapsulating to. So, the packet takes a path the EIDs it is encapsulating to. So, the packet = takes a path
through = RTRs that have a different set of cache entries. through RTRs that have a different set of cache = entries.
=
o Should = management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a = o Should management "touch points" be = minimized by only choosing a
few xTRs, = just enough for redundancy? few = xTRs, just enough for redundancy?
=
o In general, = using more ITRs doesn't increase management load, o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase = management load,
since = caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand, = since caches are built and stored = dynamically. On the other hand,
using more = ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to- = using more ETRs does require more = management, since EID-Prefix-to-
RLOC = mappings need to be explicitly configured. RLOC mappings need to be explicitly = configured.
=
When deciding = on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, the When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating = Tunneling, the
following = issues should be considered: = following issues SHOULD be considered:
=
o Flat = tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between the = o Flat tunneling implements a single = encapsulation path between the
source site = and destination site. This generally offers better source site and destination site. This generally = offers better
paths = between sources and destinations with a single encapsulation = paths between sources and destinations = with a single encapsulation
= path. path.
=
o Recursive = Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again further = o Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated = traffic is again further
= encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to = encapsulated in another tunnel, either to = implement VPNs or to
perform = Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the = perform Traffic Engineering. When doing = VPN-based tunneling, the
site has = some control, since the site is prepending a new site has some control, since the site is = prepending a new
= encapsulation header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the = site encapsulation header. In = the case of TE-based tunneling, the site
may have control if it is prepending a new = tunnel header, but if MAY have control if it is prepending a new = tunnel header, but if
the site's = ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has = no control.
Recursive = Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but = Recursive Tunneling generally will result = in suboptimal paths but
with the = benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that = with the benefit of steering traffic to = parts of the network that
have more = resources available. have more = resources available.
=
o The = technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only = o The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures = that packets only
require one = encapsulation header. So, if a packet needs to be re- require one encapsulation header. So, if a packet = needs to be re-
routed, it = is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re- routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and = then Re-
= Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC. = Encapsulated with a new encapsulation = header using a new RLOC.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 41, line = 12 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 40, line = 36 =C2=B6
addresses MUST = be used only in the outer IP header so the NAT device addresses MUST be used only in the outer IP header so = the NAT device
can translate = properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST be translated can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses = MUST be translated
before = encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs are not in use. = before encapsulation is performed when LISP = VPNs are not in use.
Both NAT = translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co- = Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation = functions could be co-
located in the = same device. located in the same = device.
=
17.5. Packets = Egressing a LISP Site 17.5. Packets = Egressing a LISP Site
=
When a LISP = site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one = When a LISP site is using two ITRs for = redundancy, the failure of one
ITR will = likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second = ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to = the second. This second
ITR's cache = may not be populated with the same = EID-to-RLOC mapping ITR's cache = MAY not be populated with the same = EID-to-RLOC mapping
entries as the = first. If this second ITR does not have these entries as the first. If this second ITR does not = have these
mappings, = traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved = mappings, traffic will be dropped while the = mappings are retrieved
from the = mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may from the mapping system. The retrieval of these = messages may
increase the = load of requests being sent into the mapping system. increase the load of requests being sent into the = mapping system.
=
18. Traceroute = Considerations 18. Traceroute = Considerations
=
When a source = host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a When a source host in a LISP site initiates a = traceroute to a
destination = host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it = destination host in another LISP site, it is = highly desirable for it
to see the = entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR = to see the entire path. Since packets are = encapsulated from the ITR
=
skipping = to change at page 44, line = 16 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 43, line = 42 =C2=B6
=
Map-Versioning = is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to = signal a peering xTR
that a local = EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so = that the
peering xTR = uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a = peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane = signaling message to retrieve a
fresh mapping. = This can be used by an attacker to forge the map- fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to = forge the map-
versioning = field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive = versioning field of a LISP encapsulated = header and force an excessive
amount of = signaling between xTRs that may overload them. amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload = them.
=
Most of the = attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment = Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated = with careful deployment
and = configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as = LSB and configuration, information = learned opportunistically (such as LSB
or gleaning) = should be verified with other reachability = mechanisms. or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability = mechanisms.
In addition, = systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective = In addition, systematic rate-limitation and = filtering is an effective
technique to = mitigate attacks that aim to overload the control-plane. = technique to mitigate attacks that aim to = overload the control-plane.
=
20. Network = Management Considerations 20. Network = Management Considerations
=
Considerations = for network management tools exist so the LISP Considerations for network management tools exist so = the LISP
protocol suite = can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be protocol suite can be operationally managed. These = mechanisms can be
found in = [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. found in = [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
=
21. IANA = Considerations 21. 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 [RFC5226]. = data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
=
21.1. LISP UDP = Port Numbers 21.1. LISP UDP Port = Numbers
=
The IANA = registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for = The IANA registry has allocated UDP port = numbers 4341 and 4342 for
lisp-data and = lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has updated = lisp-data and lisp-control operation, = respectively. IANA has updated
the = description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as = follows:
=
lisp-data = 4341 udp LISP Data Packets = lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
= lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control = Packets
=
22. = References 22. References
=
22.1. Normative = References 22.1. Normative = References
=
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, = A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", = draft-ietf-lisp-
ddt-09 (work in progress), January = 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] =
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An = Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation = Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 = (work in
progress), April 2015. =
= =
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
= Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. = Cabellos-Aparicio,
= "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) = Control-Plane",
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 (work in progress), = October = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), = December
= 2017. 2017.
=
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., = Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", = draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
(work in progress), October = 2017.
= =
[RFC0768] = Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD = 6, RFC 768,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, = DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
=
[RFC0791] = Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, = RFC 791,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, = DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
=
[RFC1918] = Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., = [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., = Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and = E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for = Private Internets",
BCP = 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, = February 1996,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
=
[RFC2119] = Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to = Indicate
= Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, = Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, = DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
=
[RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within [RFC2474] Nichols, K., = Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. = Black,
ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI = 10.17487/RFC2404, November = = "Definition of the Differentiated Services = Field (DS
= 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>. = Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 = Headers", RFC 2474,
= DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
=
[RFC3168] = Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition = [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and = D. Black, "The Addition
of = Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) = to IP",
RFC = 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September = 2001,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
=
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC = 1700 is Replaced
by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI = 10.17487/RFC3232,
January 2002, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>. =
= =
[RFC4086] = Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. = Crocker,
= "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, = "Randomness Requirements for = Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, = DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
=
[RFC4632] = Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless = Inter-domain Routing
= (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation = (CIDR): The Internet Address = Assignment and Aggregation
= Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI = 10.17487/RFC4632, August
= 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>. 2006, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
=
[RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using = HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC = 4868,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May = 2007,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. =
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines = for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC = 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May = 2008,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. =
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, = "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC = 5496,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March = 2009,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5496>. =
= =
[RFC5944] = Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", = [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility = Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC = 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November = 2010,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.
=
[RFC6115] Li, T., Ed., "Recommendation for a Routing = Architecture",
RFC 6115, DOI 10.17487/RFC6115, February = 2011,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6115>. =
= =
[RFC6275] = Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. = Arkko, "Mobility
= Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI = 10.17487/RFC6275, July
= 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. 2011, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
=
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, = "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) = Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January = 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>. =
[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, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>. =
[RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, = "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC = 7052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October = 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>. =
[RFC7214] Andersson, L. and C. Pignataro, "Moving = Generic Associated
Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New = Registry",
RFC 7214, DOI 10.17487/RFC7214, May = 2014,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7214>. =
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, = F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, = "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element = Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI = 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>. =
= =
[RFC7833] = Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A [RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. = Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A
= RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name = Identifier
= Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security Format, and Confirmation Methods for the = Security
= Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833, Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC = 7833,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016, = DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>.
=
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, = B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines = for
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat = Analysis", RFC 7835, = Writing = an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
= DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, = RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126,= June 2017,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID = Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC = 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February = 2017,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
=
[RFC8200] = Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 = [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, = "Internet Protocol, Version 6
= (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC = 8200,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, = DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
=
22.2. = Informative References 22.2. = Informative References
=
[AFN] = IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August = 2016,
= <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>. = = <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
=
[CHIAPPA] = Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", = [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and = Endpoint names: A Proposed",
= 1999, 1999,
= <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>. = = <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
= Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, = Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, = V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., = and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID = Mobility Using a
= Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-00 = Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01
= (work in progress), May 2017. = (work in progress), November 2017.
= =
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
= = Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
= = Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
= (LISP)", = draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
= = progress), April 2015.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
= Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP = Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, = D., and C. White, "LISP
= Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress), = Mobile Node", = draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress),
= October 2017. October = 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
= Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP = Predictive
= RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-00 = (work in RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work = in
= progress), June 2017. progress), November = 2017.
=
= = [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
= Maino, = F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
= Saucez, = "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
= (work in = progress), October 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
= Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", = Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, = "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
= draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06 = (work in draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work = in
= progress), August 2017. progress), November 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
= Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual = Private
= Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-00 = (work in Networks = (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work = in
= progress), May 2017. progress), November 2017.
=
= [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] = [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]
= Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural = Implications of
= Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 = Locator/ID Separation", = draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01
= (work in progress), January 2009. = (work in progress), January 2009.
=
[LISA96] = Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin, [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. = Coffin,
= "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix = Tenth System
= Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996. Administration Conference (LISA 96), = October 1996.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 49, line = 9 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 47, line = 22 =C2=B6
=
[RFC2784] = Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, = D., and P.
= Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, = Traina, "Generic Routing = Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, = DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
=
[RFC3056] = Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains = [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, = "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via = IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI = 10.17487/RFC3056, February
= 2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>. 2001, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
=
= [RFC3232] Reynolds, = J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
= by an = On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
= January = 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.
= =
[RFC3261] = Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, = [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., = Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., = Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., = and E.
= Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, = Schooler, "SIP: Session = Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, = DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
=
[RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for = Cryptographic
Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, DOI = 10.17487/RFC4107,
June 2005, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4107>. =
= =
[RFC4192] = Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, = "Procedures for
= Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, = Renumbering an IPv6 Network = without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005, = DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.
=
[RFC4866] = Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route [RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, = "Enhanced Route
= Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC = 4866,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007, = DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4866>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4866>.
=
[RFC4984] = Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report = [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., = and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
= from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", from the IAB Workshop on Routing and = Addressing",
RFC = 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September = 2007,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
=
[RFC6480] Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure = to Support
Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI = 10.17487/RFC6480,
February 2012, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>. =
[RFC6518] Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and = Authentication for
Routing Protocols (KARP) Design = Guidelines", RFC 6518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6518, February = 2012,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6518>. =
= =
[RFC6831] = Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The = [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., = Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
= Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for = Multicast
= Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January Environments", RFC 6831, DOI = 10.17487/RFC6831, January
= 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>. 2013, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
=
[RFC6832] = Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and = V. Fuller,
= "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID = Separation Protocol
= (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, = (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, = DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
=
= [RFC6834] Iannone, = L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
= = Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
= =
[RFC6835] = Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The = Locator/ID Separation
= Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC = 6835,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013, = DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
=
[RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID = (EID) to
Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC = 6837,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January = 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>. =
= =
[RFC6935] = Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and = [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. = Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP = Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC = 6935,
DOI = 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, = DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
=
[RFC6936] = Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement = [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, = "Applicability Statement
for = the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with = Zero Checksums",
RFC = 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, = RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
= <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>. = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
=
= [RFC7052] Schudel, = G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
= = Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.
=
= [RFC7215] Jakab, = L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
= Pascual, = J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
= Protocol = (LISP) Network Element Deployment
= = Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
= 2014, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
=
= [RFC7835] Saucez, = D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
= = Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
= =
[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
= (LISP) = Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
= DOI = 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
= = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
=
= [RFC8111] Fuller, = V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
= Smirnov, = "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
= Database = Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
= May 2017, = <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
= =
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments Appendix A. = Acknowledgments
=
An initial = thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the = An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for = planting the seeds for the
initial ideas = for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues = to provide value
to the LISP = authors. to the LISP = authors.
=
A special and = appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel = Chiappa for
providing = architectural impetus over the past decades on separation = providing architectural impetus over the = past decades on separation
of location = and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews = of the LISP
architecture = and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a = architecture and documents, coupled with = enthusiasm for making LISP a
=
skipping = to change at page 52, line = 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 51, line = 5 =C2=B6
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-06 = B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
=
= o Posted January = 2018.
=
= o Remove references = to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
=
= o Document scanned = to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
=
= o Made changes to = reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
= = Iannone.
=
= o Ran IDNITs on the = document.
=
= B.2. 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.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.3. 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 52, line = 35 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 51, line = 48 =C2=B6
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.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.4. 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.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.5. 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.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.6. 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.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.7. 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.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.8. 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.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
=
o Posted = December 2016. o Posted December = 2016.
=
o Created = working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from = draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 = individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other = changes made.
=
Authors' = Addresses Authors' Addresses
=
Dino = Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman = Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA = 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA = USA
=
EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com
= =
Vince = Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman = Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA = 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA = USA
=
EMail: = vince.fuller@gmail.com EMail: = vince.fuller@gmail.com
=
Dave = Meyer Dave Meyer
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 108 change = blocks. 
396 lines changed or = deleted 340 lines changed or = added

This = html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available = from http://tools.ietf.org/to= ols/rfcdiff/
=20 =20 = --Apple-Mail=_9947AF75-7CFD-4DA1-B244-66A2B4196060 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 >=20 > HI Albert, >=20 > thanks for your reply.=20 >=20 > My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >=20 > Luigi >=20 >> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>=20 >=20 > [snip] >> > >> > >> > Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >> > lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] = exchange. >> > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >> > host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >> > must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >> > manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >> > unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >> > be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >> > topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >> > addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >> > structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >> > is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >> > string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >> > for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >> > given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >> > same entity in both cases. >> > >> > >> > Is the above sentence really necessary? >> > >>=20 >> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the = =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID = is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This = change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure = if this is a good idea. >=20 > For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >=20 > " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an = RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D=20= >=20 > I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces = are well scoped there is no need for this.=20 >=20 > [snip] >=20 > About the following: >=20 >>=20 >> > >> > o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >> > >> > o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >> > further information. >> > >> > I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >> > >> > >>=20 >> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start = from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >=20 > Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is the = bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets with = the previous one.=20 >=20 >>=20 >> > >> > The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >> > ECN bits and DSCP . >> > >> > 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >> > >> > 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the = encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >> > This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a = bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >> > and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>=20 >>=20 >> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>=20 >> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>=20 >> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>=20 >> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>=20 >> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>=20 >> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>=20 >> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>=20 >=20 > Text looks very good to me. >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> > >> > Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >> > >> > What this section should state is that priority and weight are used = to select the RLOC to use. >> > Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do = not know neither priority nor weight. >> > >> > All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >> > >>=20 >> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is = less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >>=20 >> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>=20 >=20 > Yes, this is what I meant. >=20 >=20 >> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing' >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > I think is a good idea. >=20 > [snip] >> > 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >> > >> > >> > This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, = with two exception: >> > The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >> > >> > All of the rest 6833bis >> > >> > Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >> > >> > >>=20 >> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define any = mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings?=20 >>=20 >=20 > Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, = but things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane = mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because = there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense to put = it elsewhere. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Luigi >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail=_9947AF75-7CFD-4DA1-B244-66A2B4196060-- From nobody Tue Jan 9 10:00:27 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC3B127010 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 D5FO85g8irWb for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (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 548671200FC for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id i196so8495273pgd.0 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7IhF6i3kDOvgBpwr7ZUghwT4ITZvlyYW/sGHNxZKIbo=; b=jJlBvvZk28Zt8Vmyoj7k5/Dym/wkvzPdcsRxnoZiTw49TpttENDQ3WSHBihalx1ZlM giOSnMrkdOrN8uaiqDBv565OtlsO+EJj6nt7uiCswqEDXtSKIoUKd2DVmfiWq82mlWuz vbED0tqctnKizaw1nY1AQaBhLVUjOjoMv2z82EyOXXXxuQcRdBDsGo6NCRmGM7ZkdJQZ KMC9UT6vHkhUY76kAHWzftCKtYPLRYwtiFwjAguprCBcUdAshrcIramgU8FlK03R/FMk Uu5rjlb/XeymOfVR65CCrxFdHpnkhtcVU5N5ZQgriIsIKNFSkl8KI1yoRSOq+qLCV5oX j0Nw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7IhF6i3kDOvgBpwr7ZUghwT4ITZvlyYW/sGHNxZKIbo=; b=VSjV0aUniOHcHPlVl6jvIrdzo7a4zFitCeqfHAMjmYXShEyHK5kMRB87DXVGgSm9pP PYF4y99kAfCj0RZSN0qADaw10vnPz86w2DtA0vajbxTVC0qjBNpPgHc+iL0uLEApGfQp 2UFAnMFwK+kJFhtO+XxpdnkgEsIfvFccQBi7WEovE6dZbV0qCo8hhRCk461YXQS0vlX4 GRRr3cNRVUvHIqXntakqpfXaQ7K1NJlQyMzh/JwdAiMIftdPph91085slpTiY7CD6Zfx xO0pqhAF0P2+wF5nAran6CC8r31PqKW15bU512+pynJVKIiAYM40qXucsAPccIRrkh+V h2KA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKdGNRGxzCSfjksXTY/HTRIJTJ/PmzFOMmRzcb4QRJVhL3awBhB vwiWsksNl8JTq2NDA/OPcdKi2Ec5 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov3EX/cjte6GPO5WMG5VhstIm2Y8pr55MZaReSA1Xe1bAvnEikzckALlz+q2TqmIvaE/xDQTw== X-Received: by 10.99.111.193 with SMTP id k184mr6613458pgc.378.1515520822903; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p124sm5939127pga.66.2018.01.09.10.00.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:00:21 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:00:08 -0800 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <131849F0-AA8F-440E-A75E-5E3407B182F3@gmail.com> References: <599A8A3E-E291-4F8A-9461-CBE87C1A2C6F@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS) X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 18:00:25 -0000 Brief reply. >>>>=20 >>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if = LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or = use the LISP control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in = their data-planes. Hence, why this information is there. >>>=20 >>> Doesn=E2=80=99t make sense to me. That is not a reason.=20 >>=20 >> It is a reason, maybe one you don=E2=80=99t like, but it is a reason. >>=20 >=20 > The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text = that does not belong to the data-plane.=20 The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage = the elements in the map-cache. It=E2=80=99s the only place it should go. >=20 >=20 >>> That information can be available in another document and still be = used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane. >>=20 >> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage in = a control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830. >>=20 >=20 > We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer = and easier to read. >=20 >=20 > [snip] >>=20 >>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point = describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear. >>>>=20 >>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell = me why you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to = EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then = we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else.=20 >>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details. >>=20 >> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I=E2=80=99m not = going to change it. >>=20 >=20 > Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert. Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the = -08 text. >> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black = spent effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don=E2=80=99t want = to repeat text as you suggested above. >>=20 >=20 > The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review = the text again to make sure nothing has been lost. Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to the = -08 text. > As I suggested in first mail:=20 >=20 > We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce,=20 >=20 > We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing Sorry, I can=E2=80=99t follow these references. Dino From nobody Tue Jan 9 10:02:52 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F38512D849; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 10:02:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: lisp@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.68.3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151552096827.1835.17094288542668257819@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 10:02:48 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 18:02:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Authors : Dino Farinacci Vince Fuller Dave Meyer Darrel Lewis Albert Cabellos Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt Pages : 53 Date : 2018-01-09 Abstract: This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among other features. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Wed Jan 10 01:53:18 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3BD127077 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:53:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 eG7A5owujv4A for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 4D3C71241F8 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:53:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 141so8985110wme.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:53:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4I4ZC2fGqWMDIcwDGzkHdY8QwIwsZUBKK7pPNLSF8wI=; b=cyXLuG9AJj7oS/UPA8cqslry8YUp83EZ298BSt3qENpExQvedljvGhUqaX/g/xyRaE IlklrgxN58M0OxRK/7lixZSp1OHDQp298KjuAveqaD8eVh2KhZVBz1AmdLVyBPAyY14n iOKH6JXDS2ExFz2/C4W7k63cTQ3+TSER4HneZqgpVTJEOiLDjLvVeSbgD8lSpfZY6FKb 6cq50WE1As9PGohLwFEdyXy9mjAIB3WkcSoIw4RwdM0dekrfEoPGm3u1IxaJ5ETKZQCR 9oa7hjo1gRE8DdMNfnNlflSdzwOzTBxsCbiIDmWbUsfqoj6qJtqX6Cg3IVK05W4YL1iM 0QUg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4I4ZC2fGqWMDIcwDGzkHdY8QwIwsZUBKK7pPNLSF8wI=; b=PsRRx0bXDwwufwKBg8GbCQzCEN1+njsXqBV/zQG60bPh4uuPV5pz9rqz9Ro9ahWqmJ BuBVgD6wNwQtg4eim7KdhfLGLa8KyLDukPQGpM48FV20vWOH3qDN3/x00N7egtNcygXj iViTMgH8FzwYAWyECrug58NxT4/f6grWy08nTOThRY4to6clrBeWSu578X5up7JDrOTm 3bfFTgadyrAc9EjYV+gCs+fVNaDw6oo6Y3CUUckil9tM64x7DUrhSTpH+NIkscSsNfeF LbehT/0YxCGXFHjpNb8LicQB+s36B/SkjZNPY5DesESiQ4+/qBpTSfnjub2GRYTlLFgp mcQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mI6s2XocL+ygNGom6PDyEgy1LbDLF3wVaxFqbmaPw6wJ/0/y8Bw LzSofgyqvIRgJNa1PJ6YBn5PupqWNtY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosvztxjfw3orEx4wFjiydJG0rD3e2DORQ/LDqm/yoZrqJaKdiiOcEmt7fgp/zqtYQfa00f1Mw== X-Received: by 10.80.171.225 with SMTP id u88mr24714409edc.167.1515577992533; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:6d04:1cfe:3b8d:cb39? ([2001:660:330f:a4:6d04:1cfe:3b8d:cb39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u21sm9165070edl.54.2018.01.10.01.53.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 01:53:10 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <131849F0-AA8F-440E-A75E-5E3407B182F3@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:53:07 +0100 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <85F1B405-03CB-4DAC-9CC0-F55210FAACCA@gigix.net> References: <599A8A3E-E291-4F8A-9461-CBE87C1A2C6F@gigix.net> <131849F0-AA8F-440E-A75E-5E3407B182F3@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review (PLEASE COMMENTS) X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:53:16 -0000 > On 9 Jan 2018, at 19:00, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Brief reply. >=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> The OAM information is necessary for the data-plane. And if = LISP-GPE, VXLAN, or any other data plane wants to use their own OAM or = use the LISP control-plane differently, it needs to be documented in = their data-planes. Hence, why this information is there. >>>>=20 >>>> Doesn=E2=80=99t make sense to me. That is not a reason.=20 >>>=20 >>> It is a reason, maybe one you don=E2=80=99t like, but it is a = reason. >>>=20 >>=20 >> The point is that in the current document there is a lot of OAM text = that does not belong to the data-plane.=20 >=20 > The OAM mechanisms are only used for data-plane purposes and to manage = the elements in the map-cache. You just mixed up data-plane and control plane, hence, would be better = move the OAM text > It=E2=80=99s the only place it should go. >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>>> That information can be available in another document and still be = used by LISP-GPE, VxLAN, or any other data plane. >>>=20 >>> But we decided on only 2 documents. And if we put data-plane usage = in a control-plane document, then we are making 6833bis like 6830. >>>=20 >>=20 >> We are better organising the specifications so that they are clearer = and easier to read. >=20 >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> [snip] >>>=20 >>>>>> You break the operational flow by opening a different point = describing what is what. It makes the overall procedure unclear. >>>>>=20 >>>>> It was put there because someone commented on it. You have to tell = me why you think it breaks flow. We discuss how end-systems send to = EIDs. We say what EIDs are and how they are assigned to hosts. And then = we move to RLOCs. It is pretty plan, simple, and straight-forward. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Those two point would have more emphasis somewhere else.=20 >>>> Where they are now they break the flow and do not provide details. >>>=20 >>> Unless you provide clear text where they should go, I=E2=80=99m not = going to change it. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Suggested to merge with previous bullet in the reply to Albert. >=20 > Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to = the -08 text. Please read reply to Albert. >=20 >>> I made some minor comments but do not want to undo what David Black = spent effort on and got approval for. And I certainly don=E2=80=99t want = to repeat text as you suggested above. >>>=20 >>=20 >> The text provided by Albert is very good, I will ask David to review = the text again to make sure nothing has been lost. >=20 > Sorry the references to references do not help. I want a comment to = the -08 text. Please read reply to Albert. >=20 >> As I suggested in first mail:=20 >>=20 >> We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce,=20 >>=20 >> We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing >=20 > Sorry, I can=E2=80=99t follow these references. Please read reply to Albert and my original review. Thanks L. >=20 > Dino >=20 From nobody Wed Jan 10 02:03:28 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27160124D85 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:03:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 nwdTpmnTlZjs for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:03:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (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 320411241F8 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:03:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id b141so25766439wme.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:03:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+UXFXJtdPd4SHNUpa5XGlQm0dHgiO1oHvx1LH4iwy7w=; b=v4V88zDyjlko4oDfN6Y0FL64JWa8qyuoEL//eIT3JKDTIM7Jw0Gjg5Kl6LsJNG+i0c T259bz5WHJhLkszgWAhLO+IvE1QIiu24tsZg9GJFVYbWoEb99d+hqmYkSB0E7Y27neO8 wweOJfJQFACamQLPtaFrL0bTSqx7+d2Q9qXekeYRIULuQCs5b4hLRKEPz2bFllEC3siw XcXfdKXxu/PeGklbbg0J1gZ93SUfo8XQ8d/s63pY/fWSzRx6BDhI7Np6o+xkpq1F/lR4 ZtvTGbzc+geuVwslYDUWMX+xiBrx3/pRtQ2lOG4Sj5CmUpPur/h/XLUig1cvHQYmYjgg 0o1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+UXFXJtdPd4SHNUpa5XGlQm0dHgiO1oHvx1LH4iwy7w=; b=CxZ7uIOcAzgPPWeaNwUN1DcR1GLxMHjXApuBWP6Lo2rfVrVqWYyh21lJZHKGIEIN55 Gfwz4Fyxr2irDkF7dpDIBIojgcFQGvFoVtwp9YyVUVeVKQ8cbIclc6vopmjPBENurm/J f8cgxoKYAV2C+TzZyTvmZrSaC9iurVi0F47t/bmfodagBYTlJX2S1nqQdYS5ClvjhVIk kKMH25CHrnIzUaYu/NE1NE+D9w+rEbqOSEf1F5omahRAnn7U6jOn8nleqmB0WU2Fdd0G 0DEqSuW6rKYKn1z1mF3tFZvuXQjMoigZ7qrT9f/eTqDzqMHT+Yr4AOHeYT82lU/3dRA+ Bl1g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf5A/7Gtay7NjdubUNLzfgWv2uXwztKzpgNI6dxUW9uVwEi40ni vSG88YJKm0vuaQq+3oE1zreaQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosN4YSzr4YnwypL5zupuEkakpCibkKUc13unfGwF1820i1kyKWX6kt9RrahjVnwn79L3Q/D1A== X-Received: by 10.28.190.20 with SMTP id o20mr3531555wmf.122.1515578602329; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:6d04:1cfe:3b8d:cb39? ([2001:660:330f:a4:6d04:1cfe:3b8d:cb39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 90sm16617825wrp.39.2018.01.10.02.03.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:03:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:03:17 +0100 Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:03:27 -0000 Dino, > On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same = arguments.=20 >=20 > This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >=20 I find this request unfair.=20 I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this document, now = you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on -08. Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a = solution. Thanks Luigi > The diff of the changes are included yet again. >=20 > Dino >=20 > >=20 >> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> HI Albert, >>=20 >> thanks for your reply.=20 >>=20 >> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>=20 >> Luigi >>=20 >>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>=20 >>=20 >> [snip] >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the = =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID = is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This = change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure = if this is a good idea. >>=20 >> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>=20 >> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an = RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D=20= >>=20 >> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces = are well scoped there is no need for this.=20 >>=20 >> [snip] >>=20 >> About the following: >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>=20 >>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>> further information. >>>>=20 >>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start = from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>=20 >> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is = the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets = with the previous one.=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>=20 >>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>=20 >>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the = encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a = bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>=20 >>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>=20 >>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>=20 >>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>=20 >>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>=20 >>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>=20 >>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Text looks very good to me. >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>=20 >>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are used = to select the RLOC to use. >>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do = not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>=20 >>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is = less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >>>=20 >>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Yes, this is what I meant. >>=20 >>=20 >>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing' >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> I think is a good idea. >>=20 >> [snip] >>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, = with two exception: >>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>=20 >>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>=20 >>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define = any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings?=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, = but things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane = mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because = there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense to put = it elsewhere. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Luigi >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 From nobody Wed Jan 10 05:32:34 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD51B12741D for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:32:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 YLlagtuIwBx5 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:32:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (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 95010127275 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f206so27049527wmf.5 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:32:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U98CWKJmGOWWGKmzffsiByJ4UJ00vPNzfPO6M0N4kD8=; b=dHQlcnhqPxxhXg+I49KDT+pmJmg90Q8agLHqZhROB7lwRFptzvye0n89aHKPurZXVP exeE0176aAFPvUoaomuxdl88dSsWpD6SJrX6PR0qYHhbKUd03c7+KeMprkq6brohcvoc VgQhSp0aDpMGXYs2HjdJG6qq5OBvu4e61FnH57bT9byNhD0z3GyuTWNEyEojDvx+dkK5 agPEdOxu4bB8viVAI8mrJW8tdNUqok5Oo0u+6FqI0HpLWm6vyqdrcHmbGbB1K8budo+V ed/iLUIR/yZrHTKOYBI+yt95M8ET27d+PB46dL6secHLrtTuCwpgNGufhv1jREM4gYeQ 1G6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U98CWKJmGOWWGKmzffsiByJ4UJ00vPNzfPO6M0N4kD8=; b=E0Mh178zCKxBByJiZetl8/69lR4NK5J1chOG5iwZ5XjCxcDuOzK7GgvYBMZ20k7wi1 NmVBr8q5IHws8kVnwtXK8h5cUlr88eFUGDWSznTHbiN+5pKzhiRx8KrlDyOfcclp+is2 FamrBBxT21BPOKU9ICE/AZJ/FYLDSCg+plbSaM1vkLLfinP29FE4AKJTzcKom1BxQH1X Qk+7Xz6zgLbBVa8ceYrOmgU/MU9f8w7P8gxLdAIk6tz4RBGMS5ABA5JuW9b6VPI0Z1v3 i5mxm2M1ciOKuZ2jzR/7TBoFewiCEp97iy/MA6Q/DRZq9P3S0VsVgSLCSgvF/JX1LXg7 9ppg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfAOn++8AHegGz4LGSlB+etcyFZ8q8e5JxAmvx9lsogQr3bxPoI KQWnV7hlNMPFhOB0JwlXyFHWVynw X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot1RBgGrDyDbH9Nr3V1Hw4aghgDLC3M/A5aTnyAy8Nk+lI2nWy6Id5wZMZlqnypHMHZ5rT3jA== X-Received: by 10.28.125.19 with SMTP id y19mr4229549wmc.101.1515591146669; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:32:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gullinbursti.inria.fr (gullinbursti.inria.fr. [138.96.193.255]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p32sm5881992wrc.9.2018.01.10.05.32.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 05:32:25 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Damien Saucez In-Reply-To: <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:32:25 +0100 Cc: Luigi Iannone , LISP mailing list list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:32:32 -0000 Hello Dino, Thanks for the efforts. The propositions in -08 are fine but are addressing only minor details. As long as the structure of the document is not fundamentally re-worked the document will remain poor and barely readable for who doesn=E2=80=99t know LISP yet. I already clearly gave my comments about all this, I don=E2=80=99t need to repeat myself. Regards, Damien Saucez > On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same = arguments.=20 >=20 > This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >=20 > The diff of the changes are included yet again. >=20 > Dino >=20 > >=20 >> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> HI Albert, >>=20 >> thanks for your reply.=20 >>=20 >> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>=20 >> Luigi >>=20 >>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>=20 >>=20 >> [snip] >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the = =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID = is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This = change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure = if this is a good idea. >>=20 >> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>=20 >> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an = RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D=20= >>=20 >> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces = are well scoped there is no need for this.=20 >>=20 >> [snip] >>=20 >> About the following: >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>=20 >>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>> further information. >>>>=20 >>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start = from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>=20 >> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is = the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets = with the previous one.=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>=20 >>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>=20 >>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the = encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a = bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>=20 >>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>=20 >>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>=20 >>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>=20 >>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>=20 >>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>=20 >>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Text looks very good to me. >>=20 >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>=20 >>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are used = to select the RLOC to use. >>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do = not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>=20 >>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is = less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >>>=20 >>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Yes, this is what I meant. >>=20 >>=20 >>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing' >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> I think is a good idea. >>=20 >> [snip] >>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, = with two exception: >>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>=20 >>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>=20 >>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define = any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings?=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, = but things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane = mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because = there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense to put = it elsewhere. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Luigi >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Wed Jan 10 09:26:45 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D063312DA3D for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 oIX3u7eRHbDf for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x22e.google.com (mail-pg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::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 E0F1412D7E2 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d6so10269691pgv.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e01FZhL8ubimVOextYgzl/o82rTntPfGUbvGMcTyvQ8=; b=CzZVq4KCSPMM4T20N9Ajg5rYcy5IxAvJhqFJoFOVvzL8CDXzmSrU/6WHZvj3p3yRbH sXBeyzK1vDmQWXZjoMSher5CmfZBf8yZ9JT9GCWw237QTzVlKvJfTCNdx+Vk6hRRrSSK FTyAGp/l5Qiz9Cttu8PDe+yf0zRKHBD/Fq9QaBvo23PqPGo8l9qjoN+80x5CIvkapVRS 8JidYpzA3Zppj1J737bREAbLmN59Y4N4UVf4gXoqASf44G7vq/BSxbwK4Q04mh5xOwpa lfdAlvPvUqfQOybCqtjA7eA13Nrf5aXpiyCZUSg5qH7Nwr57523wHh6QhCNEodA2q+eU 9lRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=e01FZhL8ubimVOextYgzl/o82rTntPfGUbvGMcTyvQ8=; b=ANznhqzerLdfUiAHLNht+z2oTzwNUNQvHw80MCetYe3pUh0qRUx5Dy1qskMnOfz5xc 2jNg0tsQmaqaurqPqiIqodUW0dcGgrEqQvF3qQ9j26xGSrIwIcclFe0kLtZWSUIFH7Id buZkkmXgolfzEYPCePSA+azP5FTFoYAGSYJwKTFek434osjKMf4YTD6V5eujceQPNzI6 42UBehAjwxvOHKwYh9FWnCDmkc/ofMYz02SukDu5hH/Np6FXzlu7pnW/PIplrvChHQ8p E4i1nj50uJbJZAJD3wnHKDmhz6YUcxTnaGOgjEPR7EjR5KoZIaJKrzGyGoAYL6gVC727 1sfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIB0klRMiAAw0fmXgKVO8RFIbtZ6aPQlnpp/d3DQzGwnFg8Hcvj OA9Ltx0m7oCz3DvrZNxQtlE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBospin028UACWoSYllSQoH9VA4FWzP+nrL9P/jMUxd8eWoE2HRNtEfpoQxfAp1bwEuikECVtuw== X-Received: by 10.101.77.133 with SMTP id p5mr15916526pgq.106.1515605200099; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r68sm36673463pfb.149.2018.01.10.09.26.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:39 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:26:38 -0800 Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:26:44 -0000 =46rom my perspective on the situation: (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. (3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t include it. (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I don=E2=80=99= t know what revision you have read and what you have not read. I don=E2=80= =99t know if your comments are old or based on one of the revisions. = Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear to me you know = that (or at least you have not told me). (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by = commenters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been accepted. (7) Adding text to something that has changed won=E2=80=99t go in = properly. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can=E2=80=99= t be just inserted. So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the outstanding = issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. This is what = I suggest: (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08. (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with = suggested text. Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I = can=E2=80=99t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put = more effort into it. Thanks in advance for your support, Dino > On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 > Dino, >=20 >> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same = arguments.=20 >>=20 >> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>=20 >=20 > I find this request unfair.=20 > I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this document, = now you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on -08. >=20 > Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a = solution. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Luigi >=20 >=20 >=20 >> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >> >>=20 >>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> HI Albert, >>>=20 >>> thanks for your reply.=20 >>>=20 >>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>=20 >>> Luigi >>>=20 >>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> [snip] >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the = =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID = is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This = change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure = if this is a good idea. >>>=20 >>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>=20 >>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an = RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D=20= >>>=20 >>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces = are well scoped there is no need for this.=20 >>>=20 >>> [snip] >>>=20 >>> About the following: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>=20 >>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>>> further information. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start = from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>>=20 >>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is = the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets = with the previous one.=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>=20 >>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the = encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a = bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>=20 >>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>=20 >>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>>=20 >>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>=20 >>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>>=20 >>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>>=20 >>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Text looks very good to me. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>=20 >>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are = used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do = not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>=20 >>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is = less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >>>>=20 >>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator = Hashing' >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I think is a good idea. >>>=20 >>> [snip] >>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, = with two exception: >>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>=20 >>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>=20 >>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define = any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings?=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the = mappings, but things like clock sweep is just management not a control = plane mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised = because there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense = to put it elsewhere. >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> Luigi >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 >=20 From nobody Thu Jan 11 06:22:01 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B7512EB84 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:21:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 PrSDmBInlZVs for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (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 8E97212EB83 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b5so4540342itc.3 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:21:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GY9lUt36jZMmWTlEciOu2lA1UN/8ChSFZU1CLiIzJYg=; b=C8QrhXuScmSqJvIHmbIlCDRwkX1sPF3B12faUrDb1Wyq0TWrsHADmJoP68hYA2oUXB giyxKCkRCXsZtMAJnaW9ogKj3z8Cq/wpNEhDVYsLdxcKSB+1cyZGNfdnI22PGqt4mbNG XYzmN5e2NprmPMyUuEE+lLmpdWh+SoPp01UqKfGpJ+opJdUtll23b/45uIBsi+CfrvQN 1sQq6WVAj40l5EwNec4/6/lHXgJW+YxRokKQs2wP0Je2ktdihHmGQtRQOG3sAOn+aTal j3Uy+KfpvM/4rdbmMd/6vlzzeCxkJEDJ0Unuw9raryM+8ysxyKEHNchbok79UxJbXdCs U4iA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GY9lUt36jZMmWTlEciOu2lA1UN/8ChSFZU1CLiIzJYg=; b=BZoeXT4pDki7q7eSuhoX3rpbn7sFr9dzSwAD5Bbwoa4iNZcXWokGF/EFcCU1aw5Y8J rKGQtT/7W1Nt6E6KeYn0E7PItk6BlF149UKO8dbPpnF0LVlfMnZ+8iIRL9C/4PD8i212 Rg3APu39Pn3vok5jfHU9zZG3pzRd+ImHKTTVQ0uvEQ+WuCrMAIK3yPbXMyd07vARF0U7 9wqF5b+9NiRiCHbeadAR3I/0REwZQpPuJWthL/rdDrEHSgUe5LZt+vlvOelVvd//qnAI XqRig+sdMqZLxbpChhH6G4LC0IK/JkaCuBF0o0FN91tjNDTd/3nUTiMkchI7UCGK1SHt 3UPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteuXlwMXNTjMHr/bn9OAyn2wrxkBD8rw9BygL/0PtkhMyU5beIH 42ZxtCinErRi2jNbEmAiP+7b4bAFQQX4jkX2gns= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou9H9QJ3UbmP3Y3DLHeOCjtQlEfF9+nq3gd5QjI+CzCzLPL7waHZPcLTd2aUfN6lVGSIRn/c7W+BHorh3lYN7s= X-Received: by 10.107.7.41 with SMTP id 41mr4744364ioh.249.1515680515578; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:21:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.181.65 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:21:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:21:34 +0100 Message-ID: To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:21:59 -0000 Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it helps with the convergence. My original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able to use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. Putting aside the discussion of what goes where, and with some pragmatism in mind, I think we're close to that with the current 6833bis. The major roadblock for me is the lack of SMR in that document, and I think this aligns with the view of others in the list. I believe that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment (using a non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into 6830bis. Sure, there would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC probing) that would not be available using only 6833bis, but I could live without those. In addition, we could work on adding some extra explanation to the introduction of 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of LISP without looking into 6830bis. I think these two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro) would minimize the changes required on the current documents and would allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with the docs. What do you guys think? Alberto On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote= : > From my perspective on the situation: > > (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. > (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. > (3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t include it. > (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. > (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I don=E2=80= =99t know what revision you have read and what you have not read. I don=E2= =80=99t know if your comments are old or based on one of the revisions. Bec= ause I see comments that I addressed but its not clear to me you know that = (or at least you have not told me). > (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by comme= nters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been accepted. > (7) Adding text to something that has changed won=E2=80=99t go in properl= y. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can=E2=80=99t be ju= st inserted. > > So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the outstanding = issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. This is what I s= uggest: > > (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08. > (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with suggest= ed text. > > Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I can=E2= =80=99t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put more eff= ort into it. > > Thanks in advance for your support, > Dino > > >> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >> >> Dino, >> >>> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> >>> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same arg= uments. >>> >>> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of chang= es already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for -08. I have= been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have received little comm= entary on the latest changes. So if your points have not been addressed, st= ate them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>> >> >> I find this request unfair. >> I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this document, now = you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on -08. >> >> Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a solutio= n. >> >> Thanks >> >> Luigi >> >> >> >>> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>> >>> Dino >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> HI Albert, >>>> >>>> thanks for your reply. >>>> >>>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>> >>>> Luigi >>>> >>>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] >>>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a >>>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in tha= t >>>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally >>>>>> unique. An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block >>>>>> associated with the site where the host is located. An EID can b= e >>>>>> used by a host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY >>>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network >>>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structur= e >>>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit >>>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLO= C >>>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the >>>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the = =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID is = an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This chang= e may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure if this= is a good idea. >>>> >>>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>> >>>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an RL= OC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D >>>> >>>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces ar= e well scoped there is no need for this. >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> About the following: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>> >>>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>>>> further information. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It simpli= fies the story here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start f= rom the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant concepts = to understand LISP. >>>> >>>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is the= bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets with t= he previous one. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity concer= ning how to deal with >>>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference betwe= en DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the en= cap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a bu= llet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>> >>>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>> >>>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' fie= ld. >>>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) fie= ld (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied fro= m the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) = considering the exception listed below. >>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to a= void discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST= copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-e= ncapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header= to the new outer header. >>>>> >>>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>> >>>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in t= he case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' fiel= d, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to= Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause t= he Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decap= sulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsula= tion, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. >>>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) fiel= d (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from= the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) c= onsidering the exception listed below. >>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to a= void discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field con= tains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion = Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'EC= N' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that = is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve = CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and beco= mes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoi= nts. >>>>> >>>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encaps= ulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer hea= der will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. >>>>> >>>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserv= es the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more im= portantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event ther= e is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 1= 8.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Text looks very good to me. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as such= should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>> >>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are used = to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do n= ot know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in this= document. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is le= ss obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >>>>> >>>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to encap= sulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a control-= plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the Priorities= and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing' >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think is a good idea. >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, with= two exception: >>>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning su= bsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>> >>>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues lik= e this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define any= mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, = but things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane mechanis= m, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because there are no= interoperability issues, hence it make really sense to put it elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Luigi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Thu Jan 11 09:50:22 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EAB12DA4B for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 7VsLl_-J7wg7 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x244.google.com (mail-pg0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::244]) (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 8090412EC07 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x244.google.com with SMTP id 136so2106781pgd.8 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kQ609utNDrpux0qhe+XqJHlgQF6XZS4cNGk9C9ZhZZs=; b=ZrmTD59HMfJ1g1sc5MLzUk/p+AbC+Zb7TujWpd9QBB/woIGOrhdTL0ZXb1Iu3V4kfW L/NwIqEPDP8XWxxj/Ly5e2fQyhqNYpO3cmGFbd4NsNvVMA5jSP7lKApsX3aeTSkU0db/ +c2kWKlXb4SSueqqLYmoyL8a5Tgek6AlCUuBk5bW6CloJofa/4U66KiRWc+BqSzXb93e 0SG4zpwypq0cz1MwUwqjpZHYwF7py/Bv9YfJLU3SznyvpMEB+ixYUoCK2+qlLd8ia5IS nJYPJuwdhxUyT41ezQ/epEEmQpdGtOX8yLJbVEFxFffyUbD88g3zjmeUOiAJPGnR8zMV ROaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=kQ609utNDrpux0qhe+XqJHlgQF6XZS4cNGk9C9ZhZZs=; b=V08EBZFxgHx0WpEhQoyRAk8jGLOJtHmUl2Isr5xypH758sNDiNeXytidCsXs9IQlhV U+71GYRCqlQtrLqtTGvh8cQ5Vpn73jZt4dciiC5gRXtkIWPs1zG0+jIyQ9N0BO+HhCSg gS074o1xsN1SWhaGFoysYy7mJoZNxQzcCSvCORSqYdN8euzQOSfuumjgc2KfDqiTsPyl ggEQouOQcsaNt1w0Lw07MOUNzobFL2y0UgrdazXWhDz9zPlhlOCiDuY5YE43sm/TblJ9 Og8X3SJHDWV9VONT3TS4+iiF04IUzAa+XF1qNd7xYINsQ5y52+lZBrxNxWsSqKGUhaxS JA5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfTuA0kaTBHuMZjebIWUiONInqgGh1v2Ga161no93q5Y5KuiLUb eRCyEzaTggVn+KN+nsq4XCs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovh8jBsKzblOaPbIkMzCTn/1wf/5wqaf8hRtLWaS7vAJxs1Jfuge5qGdy+qTslbf6EqQBNVmw== X-Received: by 10.99.123.28 with SMTP id w28mr7691805pgc.305.1515693004805; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s25sm36638925pge.63.2018.01.11.09.50.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:03 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:50:02 -0800 Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , Dino Farinacci Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:50:17 -0000 Thanks Alberto for your comments. Here is how I break up items in the = control-plane and the data-plane.=20 Control-Plane (6833bis document): (1) The definition of control-plane messages. These are already = documented in 6833bis. (2) What components make up the control-plane that are not also in the = data-plane. That is Map-Servers, Map-Resovers, LISP-ALT nodes, LISP-DDT = nodes. These are already documented in 6833bis. Data-Plane (6830bis document): (1) What is required to move packets. Which includes the encapsulation = format and the database-mappings and map-cache xTRs use. These are = already documented in RFC6830bis. (2) The components that make up the data-plane. That is ITRs, ETRs, = PxTRs, and RTRs. (3) And the elements of operation that the components in (2) use. So = RLOC-probing and SMRs are explained in RFC6830bis because the components = in (2) use. They are using control-plane messages obviously but those = messages are defined in 6833bis. Note that ETRs send SMRs, note ITRs and PITR send RLOC-probes. These = messages are not sent by any control-plane components. Another = data-plane can be defined to do its own OAM or map version updating and = use the messages defined in 6833bis to do that. But they could also = might =E2=80=9Clet me try to use the same map-cache mechanisms as LISP = but use a different encapsulation format=E2=80=9D. In this case, an = implementor or deployer would read 6830bis. Having said that, people don=E2=80=99t create walls between getting = information so if they want to do their own data-plane they can still = read 6830bis. Another point about SMRs, the entire section talks about what ITRs and = ETRs do. And these devices are data-plane components. Putting this = section in 6833bis would possibly surprise a reader implementing another = data-plane. For instance, a VXLAN data-plane reader would say =E2=80=9Cwha= t is an ITR and ETR? I have VTEPs=E2=80=9D. Another point about SMRs, = they can be data driven. This happens when an ITR encapsulates to an ETR = where the EID is no longer residing. That ETR, could respond with a SMR = to the ITR to inform it that it has out of date mappings. This is all = data-plane driven. Wouldn=E2=80=99t make logical sense to put it in = 6833bis. Anyways, that is the way I look at it, Dino > On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal = wrote: >=20 > Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it helps with > the convergence. >=20 > My original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able to > use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. Putting aside > the discussion of what goes where, and with some pragmatism in mind, I > think we're close to that with the current 6833bis. The major > roadblock for me is the lack of SMR in that document, and I think this > aligns with the view of others in the list. >=20 > I believe that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the > required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment (using a > non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into 6830bis. Sure, there > would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC probing) that would not be > available using only 6833bis, but I could live without those. In > addition, we could work on adding some extra explanation to the > introduction of 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of > LISP without looking into 6830bis. >=20 > I think these two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro) > would minimize the changes required on the current documents and would > allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with the docs. > What do you guys think? >=20 > Alberto >=20 > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >> =46rom my perspective on the situation: >>=20 >> (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. >> (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. >> (3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t include it. >> (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. >> (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I don=E2=80= =99t know what revision you have read and what you have not read. I = don=E2=80=99t know if your comments are old or based on one of the = revisions. Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear to = me you know that (or at least you have not told me). >> (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by = commenters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been accepted. >> (7) Adding text to something that has changed won=E2=80=99t go in = properly. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can=E2=80=99= t be just inserted. >>=20 >> So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the = outstanding issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. = This is what I suggest: >>=20 >> (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08. >> (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with = suggested text. >>=20 >> Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I = can=E2=80=99t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put = more effort into it. >>=20 >> Thanks in advance for your support, >> Dino >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>=20 >>> Dino, >>>=20 >>>> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same = arguments. >>>>=20 >>>> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> I find this request unfair. >>> I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this document, = now you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on -08. >>>=20 >>> Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a = solution. >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> Luigi >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>>>=20 >>>> Dino >>>>=20 >>>> >>>>=20 >>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> HI Albert, >>>>>=20 >>>>> thanks for your reply. >>>>>=20 >>>>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>>>=20 >>>>> Luigi >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >>>>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>>>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from = the =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an = EID is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. = This change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% = sure if this is a good idea. >>>>>=20 >>>>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>>>=20 >>>>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both = an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D= >>>>>=20 >>>>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If = namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this. >>>>>=20 >>>>> [snip] >>>>>=20 >>>>> About the following: >>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>>>>> further information. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers = start from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is = the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets = with the previous one. >>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the = encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a = bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >>>>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to = Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less = than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform = this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment = across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed = when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>>>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and = 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Text looks very good to me. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are = used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we = do not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis = is less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of = ideas): >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator = Hashing' >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> I think is a good idea. >>>>>=20 >>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, = with two exception: >>>>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the = versioning subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues = like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define = any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the = mappings, but things like clock sweep is just management not a control = plane mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised = because there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense = to put it elsewhere. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks >>>>>=20 >>>>> Luigi >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> lisp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Thu Jan 11 09:57:11 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD6612EC19 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:56:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 PrZxVDkJdjll for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:56:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A608112EC14 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B62824006B; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:56:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1515693406; bh=gTObgtBzwUSK264hJaq51TF/l7TyysS1AgWoZgQS5mw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=b1kkqxRxmarjc2Rj+9bkJSJpPFZUaiF9BGY2fFfr0sEE6pm4bmoJF5Y48SkVtamqc EtKwKH+qVDvF9tRmuPkQ5TCWTZ8Gqa6T5QxtiQS2eMpGx3UdwWFWp5AsM7xge47JXo w2FqQJrtNqDgPkF3SbUts7hPW+QWCJp4JQYVIX0U= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 999E524D4C0; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:56:45 -0800 (PST) To: Dino Farinacci , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <105294f9-2214-e9f2-d0d1-6ca656bd6d75@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:56:44 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:56:57 -0000 Working group: I see folks making a case for SMR being in either 6830bis or 6833bis. It is up to the WG. What say you? Yours, Joel On 1/11/18 12:50 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > Thanks Alberto for your comments. Here is how I break up items in the control-plane and the data-plane. > > Control-Plane (6833bis document): > > (1) The definition of control-plane messages. These are already documented in 6833bis. > (2) What components make up the control-plane that are not also in the data-plane. That is Map-Servers, Map-Resovers, LISP-ALT nodes, LISP-DDT nodes. These are already documented in 6833bis. > > Data-Plane (6830bis document): > > (1) What is required to move packets. Which includes the encapsulation format and the database-mappings and map-cache xTRs use. These are already documented in RFC6830bis. > (2) The components that make up the data-plane. That is ITRs, ETRs, PxTRs, and RTRs. > (3) And the elements of operation that the components in (2) use. So RLOC-probing and SMRs are explained in RFC6830bis because the components in (2) use. They are using control-plane messages obviously but those messages are defined in 6833bis. > > Note that ETRs send SMRs, note ITRs and PITR send RLOC-probes. These messages are not sent by any control-plane components. Another data-plane can be defined to do its own OAM or map version updating and use the messages defined in 6833bis to do that. But they could also might “let me try to use the same map-cache mechanisms as LISP but use a different encapsulation format”. In this case, an implementor or deployer would read 6830bis. > > Having said that, people don’t create walls between getting information so if they want to do their own data-plane they can still read 6830bis. > > Another point about SMRs, the entire section talks about what ITRs and ETRs do. And these devices are data-plane components. Putting this section in 6833bis would possibly surprise a reader implementing another data-plane. For instance, a VXLAN data-plane reader would say “what is an ITR and ETR? I have VTEPs”. Another point about SMRs, they can be data driven. This happens when an ITR encapsulates to an ETR where the EID is no longer residing. That ETR, could respond with a SMR to the ITR to inform it that it has out of date mappings. This is all data-plane driven. Wouldn’t make logical sense to put it in 6833bis. > > Anyways, that is the way I look at it, > Dino > >> On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal wrote: >> >> Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it helps with >> the convergence. >> >> My original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able to >> use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. Putting aside >> the discussion of what goes where, and with some pragmatism in mind, I >> think we're close to that with the current 6833bis. The major >> roadblock for me is the lack of SMR in that document, and I think this >> aligns with the view of others in the list. >> >> I believe that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the >> required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment (using a >> non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into 6830bis. Sure, there >> would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC probing) that would not be >> available using only 6833bis, but I could live without those. In >> addition, we could work on adding some extra explanation to the >> introduction of 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of >> LISP without looking into 6830bis. >> >> I think these two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro) >> would minimize the changes required on the current documents and would >> allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with the docs. >> What do you guys think? >> >> Alberto >> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>> From my perspective on the situation: >>> >>> (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. >>> (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. >>> (3) I disgree with some text so don’t include it. >>> (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. >>> (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I don’t know what revision you have read and what you have not read. I don’t know if your comments are old or based on one of the revisions. Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear to me you know that (or at least you have not told me). >>> (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by commenters. So I don’t know if what I changed has been accepted. >>> (7) Adding text to something that has changed won’t go in properly. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can’t be just inserted. >>> >>> So -08 has been submitted. I don’t know what are the outstanding issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. This is what I suggest: >>> >>> (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08. >>> (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with suggested text. >>> >>> Let’s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I can’t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put more effort into it. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> Dino >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>> >>>> Dino, >>>> >>>>> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the same arguments. >>>>> >>>>> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I find this request unfair. >>>> I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this document, now you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on -08. >>>> >>>> Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a solution. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Luigi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>>>> >>>>> Dino >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> HI Albert, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for your reply. >>>>>> >>>>>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>>>> >>>>>> Luigi >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] >>>>>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>>>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a >>>>>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>>>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that >>>>>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally >>>>>>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks MAY >>>>>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network >>>>>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure >>>>>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit >>>>>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC >>>>>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>>>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the >>>>>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from the ‘Internet scalability mindset’, why not say that an EID is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure if this is a good idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>>>> >>>>>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.” >>>>>> >>>>>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this. >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> About the following: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>>>>>> further information. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It simplifies the story here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don´t think that readers start from the ‘Definition of terms’, these are relevant concepts to understand LISP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me is the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two bullets with the previous one. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity concerning how to deal with >>>>>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be a bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field. >>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. >>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Text looks very good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in this document. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of ideas): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator Hashing' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think is a good idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, with two exception: >>>>>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not define any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, but things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense to put it elsewhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Luigi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From nobody Thu Jan 11 22:48:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67E81289B0; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:48:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 xzFtpml5if8X; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:48:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78E3B126CD6; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:48:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2103; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515739698; x=1516949298; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=GkLdi4UaBgYnAfbOd5v2f0bag7F+EhA+gWqM0QjCnLs=; b=YiYtWn8RpEExLtueqAn8BoQSYR85Z0zwOp0+myDGi/pXV6R7s7nNXqe/ FYw0XSqGAp15glnFOD/ljAIRQ0flmnPP6fdDnjyIwZ/oe4T6svY1kP0O2 ih0uNRpI4+9U32DewVyuvbLxR7DZCrIj1bknLWt7gdPipStLAWr1BAkXr A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B/BADQWVha/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNBZnQnAQaOJI5hmTIUggIKI4UYhEE/GAEBAQEBAQEBAWsdC4V?= =?us-ascii?q?kMQ4SARwiQiYBBA4NiisQshqKPAEBAQEBBQEBAQEkhDyCFYFXgWmGUgsCgT4BE?= =?us-ascii?q?gGGGwWKW48XiXICiAmNNYIiZ4EbhBuEFYdFjT6JOgIRGQGBOwEfOWBwbxWCaAi?= =?us-ascii?q?ETnmJG4ElgRcBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,348,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="55638340" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jan 2018 06:48:17 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0C6mGZr008454 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:48:17 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:48:16 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:48:16 -0600 From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast.all@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt Thread-Index: AdOLcLxCyIYYx6rFQ5mJ4GHzb7Xvog== Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:48:16 +0000 Message-ID: <67a4814cf3aa408c8794d9b937cb8fcf@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.65.57.31] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:48:21 -0000 Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. Th= e Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts= as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on spec= ial request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Rout= ing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see htt= p://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir . Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it wo= uld be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Ca= ll comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion= or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt Reviewer: Les Ginsberg Review Date: 11 January 2018 IETF LC End Date: Unknown Intended Status: Experimental Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that sho= uld be considered prior to publication. Comments: This draft is very well written. Ideas are presented in a logical and coher= ent manner and I find it easy to understand the concepts even without necessarily being an expert in the specific technology. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: The first use of LCAF (Section 2) should be expanded. I find the acronym "RTR" a bit unfortunate for the obvious reason that it i= ntuitively represents "just a router". I wonder if the authors could consider something like "ReTR". I am sensitive to the fact that this docume= nt has been around since 2014 and has undergone significant WG review. I ha= ve not attempted to track all of the email history regarding this document. Pe= rhaps this point has been considered and consensus has been that the RTR acronym is the best choice. If so, feel free to disregard my suggestion= , but as someone who read this document for the first time I found myself=20 looking back for the definition of "RTR" multiple times as I read through t= he text. Les From nobody Fri Jan 12 03:01:54 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17BF12E04A for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:01:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 MydQVdTEnMDj for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (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 ABAB0126C23 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id b141so11345590wme.1 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:01:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=z5id+B6nonc96kgRhdcdJxUltqO555Hd3z24pwJ6WjY=; b=kyTM+e0GL+EbXXeCTdrBOfu+z+ylRM31ey4zE6o07dX0YJ83lH7FmApCSmA11QgW2J q8gNCzkoI224FXTeXnGafDtmjHuutOIqQu1xq7AVicOijiQVhJbLNcFqY4LDcoB1nkNx 8/GjS8Q7kXUo/gTMWeyQrFTAjJ0l0ztJ+vHnF/tvunoxQ9rhEi4kFnS6nm4uXSvDxG8b RFlSGS6mRAoOZEDblFhXS7rJ79L6ciLk50SkZ3CkyHxlrgHBediwP0hzCMrB0M5XK/45 280BA5u0nN7Y3+lDamcKogHb1sGZiMiuwNEqtF+4/k/01aVvYyqRyrRrmFLlcumacUpf ezOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=z5id+B6nonc96kgRhdcdJxUltqO555Hd3z24pwJ6WjY=; b=IxEhp3Ke9IqRjRKvdI85OLYUIInKDr4BQT7sjiZ5PEMJDdvHG2k100l88wkEO5pRyB rJ26OwVnrMj1Kb9oE/XMi1GW2tgnIc2sd7z+Bo82bb5NG6FshjVXZN5/8jHjNShJVCaM rJfO1Pzp+8HbYnlix5xnjinqieum+xx2UYWWlhP5TyNxwaPSdbU4s48AJbr8L535SecP 4znEYszdoRGxvSki820wUklEJoWO1LyS0WTh8VpJiP8kEfDtvWKVaLhgeZZzoPfNmZwt a7iBC5qjiDjZQZpFLbu8EfVe3s5XoNN85hF1I4YaPlAH251zGX1VT2+nReREy/vqt2uS /OAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyte37FgHVSVRwGZVytAJZNP7Hgh40XAjFRzBlzc8Ag26D4uoATXr Ss0jHvH4vXorzckUp/G67DtChh9aLoc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovVE0C8QGA8CPAESBCdU68u60E4ZBa5H3wfZrdljVLRrmc6oRDBY4HpUWqaRMSOs0ohSvuY7A== X-Received: by 10.80.173.45 with SMTP id y42mr5600182edc.247.1515754906032; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:01:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:f1ab:1862:7e58:42c5? ([2001:660:330f:a4:f1ab:1862:7e58:42c5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r15sm12269982edi.23.2018.01.12.03.01.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:01:44 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Message-Id: <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C82D885-C62C-4A1B-AE0B-87C9AD6430C1" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:01:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , "lisp@ietf.org list" To: Dino Farinacci References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5C82D885-C62C-4A1B-AE0B-87C9AD6430C1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 11 Jan 2018, at 18:50, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Thanks Alberto for your comments. Here is how I break up items in the = control-plane and the data-plane.=20 >=20 > Control-Plane (6833bis document): >=20 > (1) The definition of control-plane messages. These are already = documented in 6833bis. > (2) What components make up the control-plane that are not also in the = data-plane. That is Map-Servers, Map-Resovers, LISP-ALT nodes, LISP-DDT = nodes. These are already documented in 6833bis. >=20 > Data-Plane (6830bis document): >=20 > (1) What is required to move packets. Which includes the encapsulation = format and the database-mappings and map-cache xTRs use. These are = already documented in RFC6830bis. > (2) The components that make up the data-plane. That is ITRs, ETRs, = PxTRs, and RTRs. > (3) And the elements of operation that the components in (2) use. So = RLOC-probing and SMRs are explained in RFC6830bis because the components = in (2) use. They are using control-plane messages obviously but those = messages are defined in 6833bis. >=20 > Note that ETRs send SMRs, note ITRs and PITR send RLOC-probes. These = messages are not sent by any control-plane components. Another = data-plane can be defined to do its own OAM or map version updating and = use the messages defined in 6833bis to do that. But they could also = might =E2=80=9Clet me try to use the same map-cache mechanisms as LISP = but use a different encapsulation format=E2=80=9D. In this case, an = implementor or deployer would read 6830bis. >=20 > Having said that, people don=E2=80=99t create walls between getting = information so if they want to do their own data-plane they can still = read 6830bis. >=20 > Another point about SMRs, the entire section talks about what ITRs and = ETRs do. And these devices are data-plane components. Putting this = section in 6833bis would possibly surprise a reader implementing another = data-plane. For instance, a VXLAN data-plane reader would say =E2=80=9Cwha= t is an ITR and ETR? I have VTEPs=E2=80=9D. This reasoning does not hold. [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ITR draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt=20= 65 [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ETR draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt 83 [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c xTR draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt 20 [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop #=20 Whoever reads 6833bis has to know what an ITR and an ETR is and what it = does. L. > Another point about SMRs, they can be data driven. This happens when = an ITR encapsulates to an ETR where the EID is no longer residing. That = ETR, could respond with a SMR to the ITR to inform it that it has out of = date mappings. This is all data-plane driven. Wouldn=E2=80=99t make = logical sense to put it in 6833bis. >=20 > Anyways, that is the way I look at it, > Dino >=20 >> On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal = wrote: >>=20 >> Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it helps = with >> the convergence. >>=20 >> My original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able = to >> use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. Putting aside >> the discussion of what goes where, and with some pragmatism in mind, = I >> think we're close to that with the current 6833bis. The major >> roadblock for me is the lack of SMR in that document, and I think = this >> aligns with the view of others in the list. >>=20 >> I believe that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the >> required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment (using a >> non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into 6830bis. Sure, there >> would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC probing) that would not be >> available using only 6833bis, but I could live without those. In >> addition, we could work on adding some extra explanation to the >> introduction of 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of >> LISP without looking into 6830bis. >>=20 >> I think these two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro) >> would minimize the changes required on the current documents and = would >> allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with the = docs. >> What do you guys think? >>=20 >> Alberto >>=20 >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>> =46rom my perspective on the situation: >>>=20 >>> (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. >>> (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. >>> (3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t include it. >>> (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. >>> (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I = don=E2=80=99t know what revision you have read and what you have not = read. I don=E2=80=99t know if your comments are old or based on one of = the revisions. Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear = to me you know that (or at least you have not told me). >>> (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by = commenters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been accepted. >>> (7) Adding text to something that has changed won=E2=80=99t go in = properly. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can=E2=80=99= t be just inserted. >>>=20 >>> So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the = outstanding issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. = This is what I suggest: >>>=20 >>> (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08. >>> (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with = suggested text. >>>=20 >>> Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I = can=E2=80=99t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put = more effort into it. >>>=20 >>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>> Dino >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Dino, >>>>=20 >>>>> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the = same arguments. >>>>>=20 >>>>> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I find this request unfair. >>>> I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this document, = now you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on -08. >>>>=20 >>>> Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a = solution. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks >>>>=20 >>>> Luigi >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Dino >>>>>=20 >>>>> >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> HI Albert, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> thanks for your reply. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>>>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. >>>>>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >>>>>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>>>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>>>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>>>>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>>>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>>>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>>>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>>>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>>>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>>>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>>>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from = the =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an = EID is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. = This change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% = sure if this is a good idea. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both = an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D= >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If = namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> About the following: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>>>>>> further information. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers = start from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me = is the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two = bullets with the previous one. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>>>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of = the encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be = a bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to = Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less = than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform = this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment = across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed = when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the = 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the = surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the = ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses = ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due = to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Text looks very good to me. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as = such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are = used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we = do not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in = this document. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis = is less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of = ideas): >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator = Hashing' >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I think is a good idea. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, = with two exception: >>>>>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the = versioning subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations = issues like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not = define any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the = mappings, but things like clock sweep is just management not a control = plane mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised = because there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense = to put it elsewhere. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lisp mailing list >>> lisp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >=20 --Apple-Mail=_5C82D885-C62C-4A1B-AE0B-87C9AD6430C1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On 11 Jan 2018, at 18:50, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>= wrote:

Thanks Alberto for your comments. Here is how I break up = items in the control-plane and the data-plane.

Control-Plane (6833bis document):

(1) The definition of control-plane messages. These are = already documented in 6833bis.
(2) What components make up = the control-plane that are not also in the data-plane. That is = Map-Servers, Map-Resovers, LISP-ALT nodes, LISP-DDT nodes. These are = already documented in 6833bis.

Data-Plane = (6830bis document):

(1) What is required to = move packets. Which includes the encapsulation format and the = database-mappings and map-cache xTRs use. These are already documented = in RFC6830bis.
(2) The components that make up the = data-plane. That is ITRs, ETRs, PxTRs, and RTRs.
(3) And = the elements of operation that the components in (2) use. So = RLOC-probing and SMRs are explained in RFC6830bis because the components = in (2) use. They are using control-plane messages obviously but those = messages are defined in 6833bis.

Note that = ETRs send SMRs, note ITRs and PITR send RLOC-probes. These messages are = not sent by any control-plane components. Another data-plane can be = defined to do its own OAM or map version updating and use the messages = defined in 6833bis to do that. But they could also might =E2=80=9Clet me = try to use the same map-cache mechanisms as LISP but use a different = encapsulation format=E2=80=9D. In this case, an implementor or deployer = would read 6830bis.

Having said that, = people don=E2=80=99t create walls between getting information so if they = want to do their own data-plane they can still read 6830bis.

Another point about SMRs, the entire section = talks about what ITRs and ETRs do. And these devices are data-plane = components. Putting this section in 6833bis would possibly surprise a = reader implementing another data-plane. For instance, a VXLAN data-plane = reader would say =E2=80=9Cwhat is an ITR and ETR? I have = VTEPs=E2=80=9D.

This reasoning does not hold.

[dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ITR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt 
65
[dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ETR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt
83
[dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c xTR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt
20
[dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop = # 




Whoever reads 6833bis has to know what an ITR and = an ETR is and what it does.

L.


Another point about SMRs, they can be data driven. This = happens when an ITR encapsulates to an ETR where the EID is no longer = residing. That ETR, could respond with a SMR to the ITR to inform it = that it has out of date mappings. This is all data-plane driven. = Wouldn=E2=80=99t make logical sense to put it in 6833bis.

Anyways, that is the way I look at it,
Dino

On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal <rodrigueznatal@gmail.com> wrote:

Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it = helps with
the convergence.

My = original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able to
use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. = Putting aside
the discussion of what goes where, and with = some pragmatism in mind, I
think we're close to that with = the current 6833bis. The major
roadblock for me is the = lack of SMR in that document, and I think this
aligns with = the view of others in the list.

I believe = that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the
required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment = (using a
non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into = 6830bis. Sure, there
would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC = probing) that would not be
available using only 6833bis, = but I could live without those. In
addition, we could work = on adding some extra explanation to the
introduction of = 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of
LISP = without looking into 6830bis.

I think these = two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro)
would = minimize the changes required on the current documents and would
allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with = the docs.
What do you guys think?

Alberto

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at = 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
=46rom my perspective on the situation:

(1) I made changes exactly to text that was = requested.
(2) I sometimes modify what the text that was = requested.
(3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t = include it.
(4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08.
(5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I = don=E2=80=99t know what revision you have read and what you have not = read. I don=E2=80=99t know if your comments are old or based on one of = the revisions. Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear = to me you know that (or at least you have not told me).
(6) = The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by = commenters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been = accepted.
(7) Adding text to something that has changed = won=E2=80=99t go in properly. So referencing some offered text in a = previous email can=E2=80=99t be just inserted.

So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the = outstanding issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. = This is what I suggest:

(1) List the open = issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08.
(2) = Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with suggested = text.

Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to = comment and discuss further. I can=E2=80=99t read your minds so I need = more of your help. So please put more effort into it.

Thanks in advance for your support,
Dino


On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:

Dino,

On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>= wrote:

Guys, please look at the latest = changes instead of hashing the same arguments.

This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the = myriad of changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments = again for -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and = have received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points = have not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to = -08.


I find = this request unfair.
I spent quite a bit of time reviewing = and discussing this document, now you just try to wash all out by = requesting comments on -08.

Please let's = continue discussing on the open issues so to find a solution.

Thanks

Luigi



The diff of the changes are included yet = again.

Dino

<rfcdiff-rfc6830bis.html>

On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 = AM, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:


HI Albert,

thanks for your = reply.

My comments inline. (trimming what = is OK for me)

Luigi

On 27 Dec 2017, at = 02:48, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com> wrote:


[snip]


Endpoint ID (EID):   An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034]
lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) = [RFC3261] exchange.
The source EID is obtained via = existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP = address.  An EID used on the public Internet
must = have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally
unique.  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.  Note that EID blocks MAY
be = assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network
topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. =  In
addition, an EID block assigned to a site may = have site-local
structure (subnetting) for routing within = the site; this structure
is not visible to the global = routing system.  In theory, the bit
string that = represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC
= for a different device.  As the architecture is realized, if a
given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer = to the
same entity in both cases.


Is the above sentence really necessary?


Agreed, why not = simplify the definitions. They are written from the =E2=80=98Internet = scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an EID is an address of = the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. This change may = require further changes on the document so I am not 100% sure if this is = a good idea.

For clarification = I was just referring to the sentence:

" As = the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both an RLOC and = an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D

I am wondering if such constrain is really = necessary. If namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this.

[snip]

About the = following:



o  EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts.

o  Other types of EID are supported by = LISP, see [RFC8060] for
further information.

I would put the last two bullets in the = definition of EID. It simplifies the story here.



I suggest to leave = them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers start from the =E2=80=98Definit= ion of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant concepts to understand = LISP.

Good point about de = definition of terms. What really bothers me is the bullet organisation. = What can be done is to merge these two bullets with the previous one.



The = description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity concerning how = to deal with
ECN bits and DSCP .

1. I think that the text should make explicitly the = difference between DSCP and ECN fields.

2. = How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of the =  encap/decap not a paragraph apart.
This basically = means that half of the last paragraph should be a bullet of the ITR/PITR = encapsulation
and the other half  in the ETR/PETR = operation.


Agreed, what about this (please comment):

When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

o  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' = field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time = to Live' field.
o  The outer-header 'Differentiated = Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field = ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception = listed below.
o  The 'Explicit Congestion = Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' = field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding = indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the = 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. = Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer = header to the new outer header.

When doing = ETR/PETR decapsulation:

o  The = inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when = the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live = value of the inner header.  Failing to perform this check can cause = the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This check is also performed = when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site.
o  The inner-header = 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic = Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) = considering the exception listed below.
o  The = 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 = 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid = discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field = contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. =  These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses = ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due = to congestion between the tunnel endpoints.

Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1.

Copying the Time to Live = (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host = intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides = for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of = concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for = TTL exception handling for traceroute packets.


Text looks very good to me.




Large part of this section is about control plane issues and = as such should be put in 6833bis.

What this = section should state is that priority and weight are used to select the = RLOC to use.
Only exception is gleaning where we have one = single RLOC and we do not know neither priority nor weight.

All the other operational discussion goes = elsewhere, but not in this document.


Agree, I suggest moving it to = 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis is less obvious, maybe something like = (not final, just a couple of ideas):

The = data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to encapsulate = and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache.


Yes, this is what I meant.


Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator = Hashing'



I think is a good idea.

[snip]
13.  Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings


This is a control plane issue, = as such it has to go in 6833bis, with two exception:
The = very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism.

All of the rest 6833bis

Actually = I remember a suggestion about putting operations issues like this in an = OAM document which would be a good idea.



So you are suggesting that the = LISP control-plane does not define any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC = mappings?


Not = exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the mappings, but = things like clock sweep is just management not a control plane = mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised because = there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense =  to put it elsewhere.

Thanks

Luigi








_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp



_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


= --Apple-Mail=_5C82D885-C62C-4A1B-AE0B-87C9AD6430C1-- From nobody Fri Jan 12 08:20:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE64B12420B for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:20:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 suyMF2dFgTVJ for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 011BA12D943 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:20:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id j7so2908690ybl.3 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:20:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lusukQn0nZXRRTBUTHBQbp693cl+XBMDEkc4p1Bfzfw=; b=Sn73kliE6+TtS1LJ4Oub/eacwpmAk2R5R10E+eXhhLgyIguPjdVGhFeVl/FLesOckd Hic1ig5wWHIYpfD4RXeYt1tmj//vnJkSLFDzQVbUvY7ZBeIlKO0XvUXDPt82mVUl8M3X eD42B1oStoCti57Cm6ONNXqAbdcw5LHnRJnuQQ31KOs23FXWMEmBJRR0DLACpG9ZbYXP jSCPLx8gVeh5DH4oh7AbayLFSLleNnR9mHKU8N2rGYf5iIjU4HVU87AqgGOx40AMFg8H 7PhtvUKuGEXVOAZN0kvou6H0UgPkvUT2055En1X5QrjezIV+6FdAaNhVhp1yCnCN2KFO fsJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lusukQn0nZXRRTBUTHBQbp693cl+XBMDEkc4p1Bfzfw=; b=fwbcPDc98hDu7os//SRrLc80UsiQDEWUW3WR4u7Pxvvk/B6VysCtXn8UHat7djuPWX C9h8A1T18O1U1jQzRxuvhSKIHeuVOkEUl+T/FDLgpTD/aXkwSkWXC+eMzo4a5Re3g/QN G+7fn9ZDY4Pu+Venfc5ryczykBWiEGyT/qQH4AuManB2sID2msb1H7x/UBkBw7PvCL3A bLp5eb3olOXpmljFC3i6NA0siK1CXDSn24F9GNOwVmWr6cE69tJviw+aJROmzQWW9s+5 uFzFM/XYD/IkxQ800kv5dOKyWSAudtl476V68M8ZkP9Hn82QxnNse2SEIMoV0U7BSGvZ lYwQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJRbrMGDbFFxM4Oa0YOqVEu0MHLSoP/sYyR/zUPl3TS/AiLeDu+ 9oYPYlB1OH4LCCbAtASTCUlYV42k1lZPqjw7OprpGDrm X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosjjGluKqZV7viXzUaGYiDOwVXaWb4J5xAXMFn7nO2C1yS2YNk1npXx9Qy/OCcirsjnvfu9NOtHjmIT/l9OJ9g= X-Received: by 10.37.131.16 with SMTP id s16mr22203873ybk.129.1515774039932; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:20:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.164.38 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:20:39 -0800 (PST) From: Albert Cabellos Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:20:39 +0100 Message-ID: To: "lisp@ietf.org list" Cc: Dino Farinacci , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0832e26035c4b1056296a5a7" Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:20:43 -0000 --089e0832e26035c4b1056296a5a7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following changes which I believe have support. Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures the most relevant ones. Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes listed b= elow, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: ------- A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the overla= y=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively. C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be validated by experts): When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field. o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating tha= t the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities and weights), t= he remaining text should go to an OAM document. E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D consider= ing the following changes: * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document --089e0832e26035c4b1056296a5a7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all

As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confir= m or deny the following changes which I believe have support.

Pleas= e note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes to help sy= nc all the participants. I hope that the list below captures the most relev= ant ones.

Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree = with all the changes listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a differ= ent hat.

WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY:

-------
<= br>A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI

B.- Change definitions of EID= and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98ident= ifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively.=C2=A0

C.- In section 5.= 3, change the description of the encap/decap operation concerning how to de= al with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be validated by experts):
When = doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

o =C2=A0The outer-header 'Time to = Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD = be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field.

o =C2= =A0The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) fie= ld (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be co= pied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in th= e case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.

o =C2=A0The = 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the= IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to= avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MU= ST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer he= ader. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the str= ipped outer header to the new outer header.

When doing ETR/PETR deca= psulation:

=C2=A0o =C2=A0The inner-header 'Time to Live' fie= ld (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied fro= m the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live valu= e of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner head= er.=C2=A0 Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the i= nner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.=C2=A0 T= his check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet= comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.

o =C2=A0The inner= -header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the &= #39;Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from th= e outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IP= v6) considering the exception listed below.

o =C2=A0The 'Explici= t Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'T= raffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid disca= rding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field conta= ins a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Conge= stion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-b= it 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inne= r header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR.=C2=A0 These req= uirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a L= ISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion betwee= n the tunnel endpoints.

Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR= and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this = is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old ou= ter header minus 1.

Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purpos= es: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel= ; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping pack= ets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfigur= ation.=C2=A0 See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute pac= kets.

D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selectio= n=E2=80=99 stating that the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in th= e map-cache (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an OA= M document.

E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachabilit= y=E2=80=9D considering the following changes:

*=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Keep bullet point = 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce
*=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints= from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) = and RLOC probing


F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bi= s

G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement = Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document
=C2=A0
--089e0832e26035c4b1056296a5a7-- From nobody Fri Jan 12 09:38:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A0C12D7F7 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3h03DuERKUdZ for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x244.google.com (mail-pg0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::244]) (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 8CAA612D831 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x244.google.com with SMTP id q12so4990835pgt.7 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RmCJVZ924Hlu0iovflekJ6G3FvHPaO3QECTkO9qYmZY=; b=hhL6ZkPYSJe4F0FaOJEex7oftXlg9MLv6Iq8HxsK+nEKSeNXqtDcdyyHJBiUkE8asp W/UNC8SSDiUeNim8sn61Mn7rJNWXdmtcpTtjwVe1l29AFNWWGsh3d8NmB1keF9Z9w+Yv IMZ3cgfRw8ecI8RFj7bUEkViALvLyXVlZfarYCe4/Xb24ogiy+v503c3sFIsjtDTiQhv Fw0AzcjjR06s7/aXF0aaBgCIeqxqu5hwELlDtGjoJeKwLimC6cuVOxWUN4cP4MD7GU5t HzBrxKo0KxGGbaWPp3exIRshP7+cDDpbOIQMuEjxQZPIWGQ5xVHLQdWriDLquQCa8AGC x0WQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=RmCJVZ924Hlu0iovflekJ6G3FvHPaO3QECTkO9qYmZY=; b=NrTCSc7niVZq23KtvQVEoCNW0snuO3lt/dwLgv95xODVdk0eGYtXeTrDaOdwCIcViU Hhc6yT6+anYeW1Has/ROMiRVtViYT7vP1AvmvguMSvZMUoTxMw2qh/RNjwMcRvVLUJv9 MuItIjBcCcBWqB0fuvlVp+nf8Ay0kDwsyzweiK4S82wU4HoSEvFve/aGY7kFIqj6tiEP muYQQj48dE6TrrBe6gRtHWCXCEkuOwmtchbm+zFkY+ZYND4LmebgkqCx3xAwLBD2jrGp zSLiw3nrlwiirQk8GUdpYZUXcM1cstfQre63xGEfxlsGPbCdeiNnmKA3VCtlVyiq6Xwe rcFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIJln+4aEp9I1+Se0rFNFhyqeGND4Azw1wcHY3W1b73C+d04WZB qeCatIhdtISVqn6TYHDAbdUg6i9F X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosm0h0Bn5vIv42YsDQZO3y5m5U09SJ01OTHQzSah8z0Qmvck/IhGKX3eOddB93KwwzIecfvpA== X-Received: by 10.84.130.75 with SMTP id 69mr27022668plc.409.1515778717656; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:a9e9:12fe:1dc9:ceb6? ([2603:3024:151c:55f0:a9e9:12fe:1dc9:ceb6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm17481935pff.108.2018.01.12.09.38.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:38:35 -0800 Cc: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:38:42 -0000 Let me put it even simpler for you Luigi. Say someone wants to write a = client program that uses the LISP control-plane documented in 6833bis. A = perfect example of this is a lig client (RFC 6835).=20 If SMRs and RLOC-Probing were to be documented in 6833bis, the lig = client implementor would be wondering if it needs to implement SMRs and = RLOC-probes. A lig client simply looks up an EID and prints out the = RLOC-records. Conclusion, SMRs and RLOC-probes are used by xTRs to be able to run the = data-plane. xTRs are data-plane components. Therefore SMRs and = RLOC-probes should stay in 6830bis, the data-plane specification. Dino > On Jan 12, 2018, at 3:01 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 11 Jan 2018, at 18:50, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >> Thanks Alberto for your comments. Here is how I break up items in the = control-plane and the data-plane.=20 >>=20 >> Control-Plane (6833bis document): >>=20 >> (1) The definition of control-plane messages. These are already = documented in 6833bis. >> (2) What components make up the control-plane that are not also in = the data-plane. That is Map-Servers, Map-Resovers, LISP-ALT nodes, = LISP-DDT nodes. These are already documented in 6833bis. >>=20 >> Data-Plane (6830bis document): >>=20 >> (1) What is required to move packets. Which includes the = encapsulation format and the database-mappings and map-cache xTRs use. = These are already documented in RFC6830bis. >> (2) The components that make up the data-plane. That is ITRs, ETRs, = PxTRs, and RTRs. >> (3) And the elements of operation that the components in (2) use. So = RLOC-probing and SMRs are explained in RFC6830bis because the components = in (2) use. They are using control-plane messages obviously but those = messages are defined in 6833bis. >>=20 >> Note that ETRs send SMRs, note ITRs and PITR send RLOC-probes. These = messages are not sent by any control-plane components. Another = data-plane can be defined to do its own OAM or map version updating and = use the messages defined in 6833bis to do that. But they could also = might =E2=80=9Clet me try to use the same map-cache mechanisms as LISP = but use a different encapsulation format=E2=80=9D. In this case, an = implementor or deployer would read 6830bis. >>=20 >> Having said that, people don=E2=80=99t create walls between getting = information so if they want to do their own data-plane they can still = read 6830bis. >>=20 >> Another point about SMRs, the entire section talks about what ITRs = and ETRs do. And these devices are data-plane components. Putting this = section in 6833bis would possibly surprise a reader implementing another = data-plane. For instance, a VXLAN data-plane reader would say =E2=80=9Cwha= t is an ITR and ETR? I have VTEPs=E2=80=9D. >=20 > This reasoning does not hold. >=20 > [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ITR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt=20 > 65 > [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ETR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt > 83 > [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c xTR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt > 20 > [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop #=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Whoever reads 6833bis has to know what an ITR and an ETR is and what = it does. >=20 > L. >=20 >=20 >> Another point about SMRs, they can be data driven. This happens when = an ITR encapsulates to an ETR where the EID is no longer residing. That = ETR, could respond with a SMR to the ITR to inform it that it has out of = date mappings. This is all data-plane driven. Wouldn=E2=80=99t make = logical sense to put it in 6833bis. >>=20 >> Anyways, that is the way I look at it, >> Dino >>=20 >>> On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it helps = with >>> the convergence. >>>=20 >>> My original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able = to >>> use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. Putting aside >>> the discussion of what goes where, and with some pragmatism in mind, = I >>> think we're close to that with the current 6833bis. The major >>> roadblock for me is the lack of SMR in that document, and I think = this >>> aligns with the view of others in the list. >>>=20 >>> I believe that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the >>> required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment (using a >>> non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into 6830bis. Sure, = there >>> would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC probing) that would not be >>> available using only 6833bis, but I could live without those. In >>> addition, we could work on adding some extra explanation to the >>> introduction of 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of >>> LISP without looking into 6830bis. >>>=20 >>> I think these two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro) >>> would minimize the changes required on the current documents and = would >>> allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with the = docs. >>> What do you guys think? >>>=20 >>> Alberto >>>=20 >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>> =46rom my perspective on the situation: >>>>=20 >>>> (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. >>>> (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. >>>> (3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t include it. >>>> (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. >>>> (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I = don=E2=80=99t know what revision you have read and what you have not = read. I don=E2=80=99t know if your comments are old or based on one of = the revisions. Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear = to me you know that (or at least you have not told me). >>>> (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied by = commenters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been accepted. >>>> (7) Adding text to something that has changed won=E2=80=99t go in = properly. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can=E2=80=99= t be just inserted. >>>>=20 >>>> So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the = outstanding issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. = This is what I suggest: >>>>=20 >>>> (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted -08. >>>> (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with = suggested text. >>>>=20 >>>> Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I = can=E2=80=99t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put = more effort into it. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>>> Dino >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Dino, >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the = same arguments. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad of = changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> I find this request unfair. >>>>> I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this = document, now you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on = -08. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a = solution. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks >>>>>=20 >>>>> Luigi >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Dino >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> HI Albert, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> thanks for your reply. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>>>>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] = exchange. >>>>>>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set = a >>>>>>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet >>>>>>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>>>>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>>>>>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>>>>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>>>>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>>>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>>>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>>>>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>>>>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>>>>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if a >>>>>>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>>>>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written from = the =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say that an = EID is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the overlay. = This change may require further changes on the document so I am not 100% = sure if this is a good idea. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is both = an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both cases.=E2=80=9D= >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If = namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> About the following: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for >>>>>>>>> further information. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers = start from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me = is the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two = bullets with the previous one. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>>>>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the difference = between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of = the encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>>>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should be = a bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>>>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to = Live' field. >>>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, = in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to = Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less = than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform = this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment = across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed = when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the = 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the = surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the = ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses = ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due = to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Text looks very good to me. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and = as such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight are = used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and = we do not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not = in this document. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in 6830bis = is less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple of = ideas): >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache to = encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using a = control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following the = Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator = Hashing' >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I think is a good idea. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in = 6833bis, with two exception: >>>>>>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the = versioning subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations = issues like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not = define any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings? >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the = mappings, but things like clock sweep is just management not a control = plane mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised = because there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense = to put it elsewhere. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> lisp mailing list >>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>=20 >=20 From nobody Fri Jan 12 09:58:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7610412D856; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 RrMozDuDOWhY; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (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 83D75129C6B; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 23so4923731pfp.3; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YnBYxk3QtsEykws4km8u4ABTx1A1qfkdvn5UyDGQPhs=; b=uL2aljjG7/hwF6nS1SSXz/RrgkhsXz/KAVt4UlCRQGTXaUr8JfrXWGcwgDoukAIdvX +8WkqswtPRYJXhwsDI1Sz3eNnfAYI4lLUt28PGZhQLGppGuZFKb2x3TQrb8I0HmLXhws irBrL4OFVhPa9wjxj0cTzyq884J42k5hf+jsMOIIE95HWTii97q7Ws7dWSYb4hndz8ey EMZ4S0SZdYGAKtEC6b5Vgb3lZCSSY1xvbDqNRctWbksED8pZ1JoHSLFn2NdMb0EXpmE5 eX8tJwo+Z565SGCwYHpboCvQYPyzls+mdVwtWOgSX3+nJ4QJdlhoIITz/Mm3OEnX3e/i uAtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YnBYxk3QtsEykws4km8u4ABTx1A1qfkdvn5UyDGQPhs=; b=C/mV1BQ4LZQG71q4eNKAW6apAJyk5VWgsOqibYLxShTLGQTAjPhVyxZkrjsVquXxtm NaEoDFWUZ3LZTCG3uoOqV8JGldAfaVbZvrGINrI/53gZUIbci1+GTm2FCsTHh4L8NT99 Qecu4JGg25KCj4UHRw6jylFfuPCJ1MsRHZG24Dx4dzP0zLAjF8hB5ot4iD6KufivXT0B AZEh8Iq+xlZhJfcBD0L0zejLm9umsZmErgYz5/CjZ6Mks+qW5YXdgbohDyqudGpEKPyB eld2sONAy63ecWemrgEuj3NTOI1GF/bgoN4HDBTpzQ3qdtaz4MlGhxarm7c0hwOsW99t mEzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIReI4qCUYwXi2fTNvigg11iI4xTnaC9kXoHtWtCBKhS7vi/q2v mkdQN8kNbo1gi1K/kShfMEA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos5xSxTdS8hN44k4kK2HUJ0am3qkRBD/ZHwsSm2z7LoN2PkoINpzH/Xass6vL8qfsA/o+nsTQ== X-Received: by 10.99.148.26 with SMTP id m26mr21028997pge.157.1515779932012; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:a9e9:12fe:1dc9:ceb6? ([2603:3024:151c:55f0:a9e9:12fe:1dc9:ceb6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm45728463pfb.13.2018.01.12.09.58.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:50 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <67a4814cf3aa408c8794d9b937cb8fcf@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:58:50 -0800 Cc: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast.all@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73A6A40F-3193-4C01-9ABC-B1E8BDF0FB33@gmail.com> References: <67a4814cf3aa408c8794d9b937cb8fcf@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> To: Les Ginsberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:58:57 -0000 > The first use of LCAF (Section 2) should be expanded. >=20 > I find the acronym "RTR" a bit unfortunate for the obvious reason that = it intuitively represents "just a router". I wonder if the authors could Les, I understand your concern here. However, RTR is littered throughout = many LISP documents as well as in product documentation and = implementations. We have clearly defined it in the base documents and = for any new use-case of an RTR, it is explained in the use-case = documents. I really think it is too late. The term will continue to be used even if = IETF changes the documents. And adding a new term could add confusion = (you=E2=80=99d have to clarify everywhere that an RTR and a ReTR is the = same thing). > consider something like "ReTR". I am sensitive to the fact that this = document has been around since 2014 and has undergone significant WG = review. I have RTR was introduced in a general way in RFC6830 which dates even further = back in time. And the component has added NAT functionality, TE = functionality, and in this document multicast functionality. > not attempted to track all of the email history regarding this = document. Perhaps this point has been considered and consensus has been = that the > RTR acronym is the best choice. If so, feel free to disregard my = suggestion, but as someone who read this document for the first time I = found myself=20 > looking back for the definition of "RTR" multiple times as I read = through the text. Do you believe the definition is sufficient? This is what=E2=80=99s in = the current document: Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that implements the re-encapsulating tunnel function detailed in Section 8 of the main LISP specification [RFC6830]. A LISP RTR performs packet re-routing by chaining ETR and ITR functions, whereby it first removes the LISP header of an ingress packet and then prepends a new LISP header to an egress packet. Dino From nobody Fri Jan 12 10:31:29 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F9F12785F; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:31:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 wNc7Us-EIVs7; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:31:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A73071200C5; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:31:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4056; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515781879; x=1516991479; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=neMNFWfuA6utcyPCzD9SZOZ0IVNbzBm1wkkfH2SntLg=; b=cvioZNzWtieHS1tsLATPRaYDO04GQgbIYCGUgkN7BQ5iMLVdAMrfTwCm mP1kfCsOKI136HV+ptxw7dUbEHRrLIQgTg2mdT+6DiIUcx9MKdn3nU2D8 8LNKtuYYMc+1+U2ScLTbJ/oHFXUgmeNRLtl3k+E6q4YKlW3uEz20hBs5a o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D4AADQ/Vha/5JdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNBgVonB4QAiiSOYYICiQuOJhSCAgqFOwIahCc/GAEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAWsohSMBAQEDASMRRQUHBAIBCBEEAQEDAiMDAgICHxEUAQgIAQEEDgUIihMDD?= =?us-ascii?q?QiubYInhzsNgnABAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgQ+DLYIVgVeBaYMugmt?= =?us-ascii?q?EBIE8ARIBgzaCZQWjJz0CkEeEeYIihh2EFYdFjX6IegIRGQGBOwEfOWBwbxWCZ?= =?us-ascii?q?4JUHBmBTniJeYElgRcBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,350,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="332262576" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jan 2018 18:31:18 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0CIVI3F028307 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:31:18 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:31:17 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:31:17 -0600 From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: Dino Farinacci CC: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast.all@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt Thread-Index: AdOLcLxCyIYYx6rFQ5mJ4GHzb7XvogAkI5wAAAvoOqA= Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:31:17 +0000 Message-ID: <225a4de9cbc54c50abbe8503dcf98093@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> References: <67a4814cf3aa408c8794d9b937cb8fcf@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <73A6A40F-3193-4C01-9ABC-B1E8BDF0FB33@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <73A6A40F-3193-4C01-9ABC-B1E8BDF0FB33@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.65.57.31] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:31:22 -0000 RGlubyAtDQoNCkkgLSBvZiBjb3Vyc2UgLSBkZWZlciB0byB5b3UgYXMgcmVnYXJkcyBhbGwgdGhp bmdzIExJU1AuIEFuZCBpZiB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIFJUUiBpcyBhbHJlYWR5IHdpZGVzcHJlYWQsIHRo ZW4gcGxlYXNlIGlnbm9yZSBteSBjb21tZW50Lg0KDQpUaGF0IHNhaWQsIEkgZG8gbm90IHNlZSB1 c2Ugb2YgIlJUUiIgaW4gUkZDIDY4MzAuIEkgc2VlIElUUiBhbmQgRVRSIGFuZCB0aGVpciBURSBl cXVpdmFsZW50cywgYnV0IEkgZG8gbm90IHNlZSAiUlRSIi4NCj8/Pw0KDQpUaGUgZGVmaW5pdGlv biBvZiBSZS1lbmNhcHN1bGF0aW5nIFR1bm5lbCBSb3V0ZXIgaXMgZmluZS4gSXQgaXMganVzdCB0 aGF0IHdoZW4gSSBzYXcgIlJUUiIgdXNlZCBpbiB0aGUgdGV4dCBJIGhhZCB0byBnbyBiYWNrIHRv IHRoZSB0ZXJtaW5vbG9neSBzZWN0aW9uIGJlY2F1c2Ugb3RoZXJ3aXNlIEkgdGhvdWdodCB5b3Ug d2VyZSBqdXN0IHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQgYSAiUm91dGVyIi4NCg0KICAgTGVzDQoNCiANCg0KPiAt LS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBEaW5vIEZhcmluYWNjaSBbbWFpbHRv OmZhcmluYWNjaUBnbWFpbC5jb21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgSmFudWFyeSAxMiwgMjAxOCA5 OjU5IEFNDQo+IFRvOiBMZXMgR2luc2JlcmcgKGdpbnNiZXJnKSA8Z2luc2JlcmdAY2lzY28uY29t Pg0KPiBDYzogcnRnLWFkc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgcnRnLWRpckBpZXRmLm9yZzsgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1s aXNwLXNpZ25hbC1mcmVlLQ0KPiBtdWx0aWNhc3QuYWxsQGlldGYub3JnOyBsaXNwQGlldGYub3Jn DQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUlRHLURJUn0gUnRnRGlyIGxhc3QgY2FsbCByZXZpZXc6IGRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtbGlzcC1zaWduYWwtZnJlZS0NCj4gbXVsdGljYXN0LTA3LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gPiBUaGUg Zmlyc3QgdXNlIG9mIExDQUYgKFNlY3Rpb24gMikgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGV4cGFuZGVkLg0KPiA+DQo+ ID4gSSBmaW5kIHRoZSBhY3JvbnltICJSVFIiIGEgYml0IHVuZm9ydHVuYXRlIGZvciB0aGUgb2J2 aW91cyByZWFzb24gdGhhdA0KPiA+IGl0IGludHVpdGl2ZWx5IHJlcHJlc2VudHMgImp1c3QgYSBy b3V0ZXIiLiBJIHdvbmRlciBpZiB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycw0KPiA+IGNvdWxkDQo+IA0KPiBMZXMsIEkg dW5kZXJzdGFuZCB5b3VyIGNvbmNlcm4gaGVyZS4gSG93ZXZlciwgUlRSIGlzIGxpdHRlcmVkIHRo cm91Z2hvdXQNCj4gbWFueSBMSVNQIGRvY3VtZW50cyBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIGluIHByb2R1Y3QgZG9j dW1lbnRhdGlvbiBhbmQNCj4gaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zLiBXZSBoYXZlIGNsZWFybHkgZGVmaW5l ZCBpdCBpbiB0aGUgYmFzZSBkb2N1bWVudHMgYW5kIGZvcg0KPiBhbnkgbmV3IHVzZS1jYXNlIG9m IGFuIFJUUiwgaXQgaXMgZXhwbGFpbmVkIGluIHRoZSB1c2UtY2FzZSBkb2N1bWVudHMuDQo+IA0K PiBJIHJlYWxseSB0aGluayBpdCBpcyB0b28gbGF0ZS4gVGhlIHRlcm0gd2lsbCBjb250aW51ZSB0 byBiZSB1c2VkIGV2ZW4gaWYgSUVURg0KPiBjaGFuZ2VzIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudHMuIEFuZCBhZGRp bmcgYSBuZXcgdGVybSBjb3VsZCBhZGQgY29uZnVzaW9uICh5b3XigJlkDQo+IGhhdmUgdG8gY2xh cmlmeSBldmVyeXdoZXJlIHRoYXQgYW4gUlRSIGFuZCBhIFJlVFIgaXMgdGhlIHNhbWUgdGhpbmcp Lg0KPiANCj4gPiBjb25zaWRlciBzb21ldGhpbmcgbGlrZSAiUmVUUiIuIEkgYW0gc2Vuc2l0aXZl IHRvIHRoZSBmYWN0IHRoYXQgdGhpcw0KPiA+IGRvY3VtZW50IGhhcyBiZWVuIGFyb3VuZCBzaW5j ZSAyMDE0IGFuZCBoYXMgdW5kZXJnb25lIHNpZ25pZmljYW50IFdHDQo+ID4gcmV2aWV3LiBJIGhh dmUNCj4gDQo+IFJUUiB3YXMgaW50cm9kdWNlZCBpbiBhIGdlbmVyYWwgd2F5IGluIFJGQzY4MzAg d2hpY2ggZGF0ZXMgZXZlbiBmdXJ0aGVyDQo+IGJhY2sgaW4gdGltZS4gQW5kIHRoZSBjb21wb25l bnQgaGFzIGFkZGVkIE5BVCBmdW5jdGlvbmFsaXR5LCBURQ0KPiBmdW5jdGlvbmFsaXR5LCBhbmQg aW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBtdWx0aWNhc3QgZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eS4NCj4gDQo+ID4gbm90IGF0 dGVtcHRlZCB0byB0cmFjayBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIGVtYWlsIGhpc3RvcnkgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoaXMN Cj4gPiBkb2N1bWVudC4gUGVyaGFwcyB0aGlzIHBvaW50IGhhcyBiZWVuIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgYW5k IGNvbnNlbnN1cyBoYXMNCj4gPiBiZWVuIHRoYXQgdGhlIFJUUiBhY3JvbnltIGlzIHRoZSBiZXN0 IGNob2ljZS4gSWYgc28sIGZlZWwgZnJlZSB0byBkaXNyZWdhcmQNCj4gbXkgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiwg YnV0IGFzIHNvbWVvbmUgd2hvIHJlYWQgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBmb3IgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHRpbWUg SQ0KPiBmb3VuZCBteXNlbGYgbG9va2luZyBiYWNrIGZvciB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiAiUlRS IiBtdWx0aXBsZSB0aW1lcyBhcyBJIHJlYWQNCj4gdGhyb3VnaCB0aGUgdGV4dC4NCj4gDQo+IERv IHlvdSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIGlzIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQ/IFRoaXMgaXMgd2hhdOKA mXMgaW4gdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQNCj4gZG9jdW1lbnQ6DQo+IA0KPiAgIFJlLWVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpbmcg VHVubmVsIFJvdXRlciAoUlRSKTogQW4gUlRSIGlzIGEgcm91dGVyIHRoYXQNCj4gICAgaW1wbGVt ZW50cyB0aGUgcmUtZW5jYXBzdWxhdGluZyB0dW5uZWwgZnVuY3Rpb24gZGV0YWlsZWQgaW4gU2Vj dGlvbiA4DQo+ICAgIG9mIHRoZSBtYWluIExJU1Agc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBbUkZDNjgzMF0uICBB IExJU1AgUlRSIHBlcmZvcm1zIHBhY2tldA0KPiAgICByZS1yb3V0aW5nIGJ5IGNoYWluaW5nIEVU UiBhbmQgSVRSIGZ1bmN0aW9ucywgd2hlcmVieSBpdCBmaXJzdA0KPiAgICByZW1vdmVzIHRoZSBM SVNQIGhlYWRlciBvZiBhbiBpbmdyZXNzIHBhY2tldCBhbmQgdGhlbiBwcmVwZW5kcyBhIG5ldw0K PiAgICBMSVNQIGhlYWRlciB0byBhbiBlZ3Jlc3MgcGFja2V0Lg0KPiANCj4gRGlubw0KPiANCg0K From nobody Fri Jan 12 10:40:26 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEB5128D2E; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:40:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 A3dOo1GPKITr; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:40:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 34B5B12895E; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:40:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id p1so5008890pfh.4; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:40:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=T7U9u8EjPqAlI/JVxyJ15Gaswzd4oWqN7wzTwpjRnC8=; b=lnXfm93gfvLl9rjurLzBFbIdUJGTfaa6q+izRW32IuaJx/oUbD4k1rFzB6sFp+XHD+ T4ijySkCO2PdOX64YI0p4jMJCbi1X00EuaAMh8I0n198GLjNq6sTWwJTqk825Aib+YoS kPZfqdTKM6GvdrAJogE+HIOpJKoASFz4G1/fufIwH3kEOu6fT/s2qavHFLCb+UdN17/a ln2Gb/leEsYqyxavKNuAXvpzGYh6A3O8nWiDUh0iozON4urRDOcDMISSNnpA24o8Yrhr BlrLXqjJndZIk06WbgoVeppx9DANv4MhbB4dSCyHdZ0y661pPEapDSdGzCo4dQbhvBQL 6dAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=T7U9u8EjPqAlI/JVxyJ15Gaswzd4oWqN7wzTwpjRnC8=; b=PJh4JCo7wSkCmrqHgbg0iF3xv8N4A+uPoEi9f/bjdX1PjhXEynVUkt0QMyMF06B4/u Yh9Pl+EmWklml0D2qts2O7dSQuQKAy+RHIOJppAxHSMQkX1jg7a0e9wmTZmvaHGRs7H8 gYupDYgszgLrgemwU8EzV4ckvDFRNNEbl5vpL8oRhus7WKzOCQiNmAWYqr71kxoToCth 0hgm3BQyt3glJA8zRfgbpo7PqQa+vLo0IB0GCQlPnMSVZMzVRL1eCZrBqNyeZwHsxcH3 u5oowXEhbe0PNC7RwfXF/KfA8J1JAHiSR/glfw83380x2vtTnhvJON63adwUY5y1oRgS l0+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLPCbLyyZuK/5NIyhlaSHa03n1GqT0iu/DIpqpZuBoLDbT34RKD tPJZDNMhO0BXHBOJk9VvKoY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovxFWxd0vbXEIeZZepgyxTjLgXb1D3DTUuTWnQ0jLrIYVhnLDAlXaEeuDNUOBH2L5OdpRFBtw== X-Received: by 10.99.116.23 with SMTP id p23mr16311995pgc.60.1515782416665; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w124sm44374952pfw.90.2018.01.12.10.40.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:40:15 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <225a4de9cbc54c50abbe8503dcf98093@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:39:54 -0800 Cc: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast.all@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3FC38CC3-F7C9-4C58-B4E0-68240FD589C1@gmail.com> References: <67a4814cf3aa408c8794d9b937cb8fcf@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <73A6A40F-3193-4C01-9ABC-B1E8BDF0FB33@gmail.com> <225a4de9cbc54c50abbe8503dcf98093@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> To: Les Ginsberg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:40:20 -0000 > Dino - >=20 > I - of course - defer to you as regards all things LISP. And if the = use of RTR is already widespread, then please ignore my comment. Thanks. > That said, I do not see use of "RTR" in RFC 6830. I see ITR and ETR = and their TE equivalents, but I do not see "RTR". > ??? That has been noticed by many and the definition has been put in the = 6830bis draft. Sorry about referring to 6830 when I should have said = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08. > The definition of Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is fine. It is just = that when I saw "RTR" used in the text I had to go back to the = terminology section because otherwise I thought you were just talking = about a "Router=E2=80=9D. A sign that you have been doing routers (aka RTRs) too long. ;-) Dino >=20 > Les >=20 >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 9:59 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >> Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free- >> multicast.all@ietf.org; lisp@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: = draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free- >> multicast-07.txt >>=20 >>> The first use of LCAF (Section 2) should be expanded. >>>=20 >>> I find the acronym "RTR" a bit unfortunate for the obvious reason = that >>> it intuitively represents "just a router". I wonder if the authors >>> could >>=20 >> Les, I understand your concern here. However, RTR is littered = throughout >> many LISP documents as well as in product documentation and >> implementations. We have clearly defined it in the base documents and = for >> any new use-case of an RTR, it is explained in the use-case = documents. >>=20 >> I really think it is too late. The term will continue to be used even = if IETF >> changes the documents. And adding a new term could add confusion = (you=E2=80=99d >> have to clarify everywhere that an RTR and a ReTR is the same thing). >>=20 >>> consider something like "ReTR". I am sensitive to the fact that this >>> document has been around since 2014 and has undergone significant WG >>> review. I have >>=20 >> RTR was introduced in a general way in RFC6830 which dates even = further >> back in time. And the component has added NAT functionality, TE >> functionality, and in this document multicast functionality. >>=20 >>> not attempted to track all of the email history regarding this >>> document. Perhaps this point has been considered and consensus has >>> been that the RTR acronym is the best choice. If so, feel free to = disregard >> my suggestion, but as someone who read this document for the first = time I >> found myself looking back for the definition of "RTR" multiple times = as I read >> through the text. >>=20 >> Do you believe the definition is sufficient? This is what=E2=80=99s = in the current >> document: >>=20 >> Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that >> implements the re-encapsulating tunnel function detailed in Section = 8 >> of the main LISP specification [RFC6830]. A LISP RTR performs = packet >> re-routing by chaining ETR and ITR functions, whereby it first >> removes the LISP header of an ingress packet and then prepends a = new >> LISP header to an egress packet. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >=20 From nobody Fri Jan 12 10:52:27 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DBA127201; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:52:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 tNGknNoLARKv; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2A34126D0C; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:52:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5806; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515783142; x=1516992742; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=o7i9MoUBZyRLn3xBaKlSB64ka+4kfaOcjmkpvPynqWQ=; b=Tl/OzCSTPMPl1PBxsf0djhncoStRVeI/HEANHYcOrns14VLbyUR/GS1D pctZAN2EC3I4vlbcX1tcjyiKtFYmZb2+avc2YasBHfdeIJBLDJ/BxQ11O YjOlMDrRRV/c6x8LB9wlozkV8DcTcH1vPx16IJpFsYR++eh2Mq5R0nCU4 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A/AQCCA1la/40NJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNBgVonB4QNiiSOYYICfIgPjiYUggIKhTsCGoQnPxgBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFrKIUjAQEBAQIBIxFFDAQCAQgRBAEBAwIjAwICAh8RFAEICAEBBA4FCIoTA?= =?us-ascii?q?w0IrnmCJ4c8DYJwAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYEPgy2CFYFXgWmCeDa?= =?us-ascii?q?Ca0QEgTwBEgE2gwCCZQWjJz0CkEeEeYIihh2EFYdFjX6IegIRGQGBOwEfOWBwb?= =?us-ascii?q?xWCZ4JUHBmBTniJVIElgRcBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,350,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="340854248" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jan 2018 18:52:21 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0CIqLkb003488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:52:21 GMT Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:52:20 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 12:52:20 -0600 From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" To: Dino Farinacci CC: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast.all@ietf.org" , "lisp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt Thread-Index: AdOLcLxCyIYYx6rFQ5mJ4GHzb7XvogAkI5wAAAvoOqD//6w3AIAAYg8g Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:52:20 +0000 Message-ID: <00a867866a0c4a6a9be77e664ff39fac@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> References: <67a4814cf3aa408c8794d9b937cb8fcf@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <73A6A40F-3193-4C01-9ABC-B1E8BDF0FB33@gmail.com> <225a4de9cbc54c50abbe8503dcf98093@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <3FC38CC3-F7C9-4C58-B4E0-68240FD589C1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3FC38CC3-F7C9-4C58-B4E0-68240FD589C1@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.65.57.31] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:52:25 -0000 DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogRGlubyBGYXJpbmFjY2kg W21haWx0bzpmYXJpbmFjY2lAZ21haWwuY29tXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMTIs IDIwMTggMTA6NDAgQU0NCj4gVG86IExlcyBHaW5zYmVyZyAoZ2luc2JlcmcpIDxnaW5zYmVyZ0Bj aXNjby5jb20+DQo+IENjOiBydGctYWRzQGlldGYub3JnOyBydGctZGlyQGlldGYub3JnOyBkcmFm dC1pZXRmLWxpc3Atc2lnbmFsLWZyZWUtDQo+IG11bHRpY2FzdC5hbGxAaWV0Zi5vcmc7IGxpc3BA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtSVEctRElSfSBSdGdEaXIgbGFzdCBjYWxsIHJldmll dzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1saXNwLXNpZ25hbC1mcmVlLQ0KPiBtdWx0aWNhc3QtMDcudHh0DQo+IA0K PiA+IERpbm8gLQ0KPiA+DQo+ID4gSSAtIG9mIGNvdXJzZSAtIGRlZmVyIHRvIHlvdSBhcyByZWdh cmRzIGFsbCB0aGluZ3MgTElTUC4gQW5kIGlmIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgUlRSIGlzDQo+IGFscmVhZHkg d2lkZXNwcmVhZCwgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgaWdub3JlIG15IGNvbW1lbnQuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGFua3Mu DQo+IA0KPiA+IFRoYXQgc2FpZCwgSSBkbyBub3Qgc2VlIHVzZSBvZiAiUlRSIiBpbiBSRkMgNjgz MC4gSSBzZWUgSVRSIGFuZCBFVFIgYW5kIHRoZWlyDQo+IFRFIGVxdWl2YWxlbnRzLCBidXQgSSBk byBub3Qgc2VlICJSVFIiLg0KPiA+ID8/Pw0KPiANCj4gVGhhdCBoYXMgYmVlbiBub3RpY2VkIGJ5 IG1hbnkgYW5kIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIGhhcyBiZWVuIHB1dCBpbiB0aGUNCj4gNjgzMGJpcyBk cmFmdC4gU29ycnkgYWJvdXQgcmVmZXJyaW5nIHRvIDY4MzAgd2hlbiBJIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIHNh aWQgZHJhZnQtDQo+IGlldGYtbGlzcC1yZmM2ODMwYmlzLTA4Lg0KPiANCg0KW0xlczpdIFllcyAt IEkgc2VlIHRoYXQuIEJ1dCAtIGF0IGEgcXVpY2sgcGVydXNhbCBvZiBvdGhlciBMSVNQIGRvY3Vt ZW50cyAtIEkgZG8gbm90IHNlZSBhIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgUlRSIGVsc2V3aGVyZS4gU28gaXQg d291bGQgc2VlbSB5b3Ugc3RpbGwgaGF2ZSBhbiBvcHBvcnR1bml0eSB0byBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIGFj cm9ueW0gYW5kIGtlZXAgYWxsIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBkb2N1bWVudHMgY29uc2lzdGVudC4NCg0KQnV0 LCBJIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gcHJvbG9uZyB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24uIEkgdGhpbmsgd2UgdW5k ZXJzdGFuZCBlYWNoIG90aGVyIGFuZCBJIGFtIGNvbWZvcnRhYmxlIHdpdGggd2hhdGV2ZXIgZGVj aXNpb24geW91IG1ha2UuDQoNCiAgIExlcw0KDQo+ID4gVGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb24gb2YgUmUtZW5j YXBzdWxhdGluZyBUdW5uZWwgUm91dGVyIGlzIGZpbmUuIEl0IGlzIGp1c3QgdGhhdCB3aGVuDQo+ IEkgc2F3ICJSVFIiIHVzZWQgaW4gdGhlIHRleHQgSSBoYWQgdG8gZ28gYmFjayB0byB0aGUgdGVy bWlub2xvZ3kgc2VjdGlvbg0KPiBiZWNhdXNlIG90aGVyd2lzZSBJIHRob3VnaHQgeW91IHdlcmUg anVzdCB0YWxraW5nIGFib3V0IGEgIlJvdXRlcuKAnS4NCj4gDQo+IEEgc2lnbiB0aGF0IHlvdSBo YXZlIGJlZW4gZG9pbmcgcm91dGVycyAoYWthIFJUUnMpIHRvbyBsb25nLiA7LSkNCj4gDQo+IERp bm8NCj4gDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAgIExlcw0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+PiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFs IE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiA+PiBGcm9tOiBEaW5vIEZhcmluYWNjaSBbbWFpbHRvOmZhcmluYWNj aUBnbWFpbC5jb21dDQo+ID4+IFNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgSmFudWFyeSAxMiwgMjAxOCA5OjU5IEFN DQo+ID4+IFRvOiBMZXMgR2luc2JlcmcgKGdpbnNiZXJnKSA8Z2luc2JlcmdAY2lzY28uY29tPg0K PiA+PiBDYzogcnRnLWFkc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgcnRnLWRpckBpZXRmLm9yZzsgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1s aXNwLXNpZ25hbC1mcmVlLQ0KPiA+PiBtdWx0aWNhc3QuYWxsQGlldGYub3JnOyBsaXNwQGlldGYu b3JnDQo+ID4+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUlRHLURJUn0gUnRnRGlyIGxhc3QgY2FsbCByZXZpZXc6 DQo+ID4+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbGlzcC1zaWduYWwtZnJlZS0gbXVsdGljYXN0LTA3LnR4dA0KPiA+ Pg0KPiA+Pj4gVGhlIGZpcnN0IHVzZSBvZiBMQ0FGIChTZWN0aW9uIDIpIHNob3VsZCBiZSBleHBh bmRlZC4NCj4gPj4+DQo+ID4+PiBJIGZpbmQgdGhlIGFjcm9ueW0gIlJUUiIgYSBiaXQgdW5mb3J0 dW5hdGUgZm9yIHRoZSBvYnZpb3VzIHJlYXNvbg0KPiA+Pj4gdGhhdCBpdCBpbnR1aXRpdmVseSBy ZXByZXNlbnRzICJqdXN0IGEgcm91dGVyIi4gSSB3b25kZXIgaWYgdGhlDQo+ID4+PiBhdXRob3Jz IGNvdWxkDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4+IExlcywgSSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHlvdXIgY29uY2VybiBoZXJlLiBI b3dldmVyLCBSVFIgaXMgbGl0dGVyZWQNCj4gPj4gdGhyb3VnaG91dCBtYW55IExJU1AgZG9jdW1l bnRzIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgaW4gcHJvZHVjdCBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uDQo+ID4+IGFuZCBpbXBsZW1l bnRhdGlvbnMuIFdlIGhhdmUgY2xlYXJseSBkZWZpbmVkIGl0IGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIGRvY3VtZW50 cw0KPiA+PiBhbmQgZm9yIGFueSBuZXcgdXNlLWNhc2Ugb2YgYW4gUlRSLCBpdCBpcyBleHBsYWlu ZWQgaW4gdGhlIHVzZS1jYXNlDQo+IGRvY3VtZW50cy4NCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4gSSByZWFsbHkgdGhp bmsgaXQgaXMgdG9vIGxhdGUuIFRoZSB0ZXJtIHdpbGwgY29udGludWUgdG8gYmUgdXNlZCBldmVu DQo+ID4+IGlmIElFVEYgY2hhbmdlcyB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnRzLiBBbmQgYWRkaW5nIGEgbmV3IHRl cm0gY291bGQgYWRkDQo+ID4+IGNvbmZ1c2lvbiAoeW914oCZZCBoYXZlIHRvIGNsYXJpZnkgZXZl cnl3aGVyZSB0aGF0IGFuIFJUUiBhbmQgYSBSZVRSIGlzIHRoZQ0KPiBzYW1lIHRoaW5nKS4NCj4g Pj4NCj4gPj4+IGNvbnNpZGVyIHNvbWV0aGluZyBsaWtlICJSZVRSIi4gSSBhbSBzZW5zaXRpdmUg dG8gdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCB0aGlzDQo+ID4+PiBkb2N1bWVudCBoYXMgYmVlbiBhcm91bmQgc2lu Y2UgMjAxNCBhbmQgaGFzIHVuZGVyZ29uZSBzaWduaWZpY2FudA0KPiBXRw0KPiA+Pj4gcmV2aWV3 LiBJIGhhdmUNCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4gUlRSIHdhcyBpbnRyb2R1Y2VkIGluIGEgZ2VuZXJhbCB3YXkg aW4gUkZDNjgzMCB3aGljaCBkYXRlcyBldmVuDQo+ID4+IGZ1cnRoZXIgYmFjayBpbiB0aW1lLiBB bmQgdGhlIGNvbXBvbmVudCBoYXMgYWRkZWQgTkFUIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHksDQo+ID4+IFRFIGZ1 bmN0aW9uYWxpdHksIGFuZCBpbiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IG11bHRpY2FzdCBmdW5jdGlvbmFsaXR5 Lg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+Pj4gbm90IGF0dGVtcHRlZCB0byB0cmFjayBhbGwgb2YgdGhlIGVtYWlsIGhp c3RvcnkgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHRoaXMNCj4gPj4+IGRvY3VtZW50LiBQZXJoYXBzIHRoaXMgcG9pbnQg aGFzIGJlZW4gY29uc2lkZXJlZCBhbmQgY29uc2Vuc3VzIGhhcw0KPiA+Pj4gYmVlbiB0aGF0IHRo ZSBSVFIgYWNyb255bSBpcyB0aGUgYmVzdCBjaG9pY2UuIElmIHNvLCBmZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8NCj4g Pj4+IGRpc3JlZ2FyZA0KPiA+PiBteSBzdWdnZXN0aW9uLCBidXQgYXMgc29tZW9uZSB3aG8gcmVh ZCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGZvciB0aGUgZmlyc3QNCj4gPj4gdGltZSBJIGZvdW5kIG15c2VsZiBs b29raW5nIGJhY2sgZm9yIHRoZSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mICJSVFIiIG11bHRpcGxlDQo+ID4+IHRp bWVzIGFzIEkgcmVhZCB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSB0ZXh0Lg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBEbyB5b3UgYmVsaWV2 ZSB0aGUgZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBpcyBzdWZmaWNpZW50PyBUaGlzIGlzIHdoYXTigJlzIGluIHRoZQ0K PiA+PiBjdXJyZW50DQo+ID4+IGRvY3VtZW50Og0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiAgUmUtZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlu ZyBUdW5uZWwgUm91dGVyIChSVFIpOiBBbiBSVFIgaXMgYSByb3V0ZXIgdGhhdA0KPiA+PiAgIGlt cGxlbWVudHMgdGhlIHJlLWVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpbmcgdHVubmVsIGZ1bmN0aW9uIGRldGFpbGVkIGlu IFNlY3Rpb24gOA0KPiA+PiAgIG9mIHRoZSBtYWluIExJU1Agc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBbUkZDNjgz MF0uICBBIExJU1AgUlRSIHBlcmZvcm1zIHBhY2tldA0KPiA+PiAgIHJlLXJvdXRpbmcgYnkgY2hh aW5pbmcgRVRSIGFuZCBJVFIgZnVuY3Rpb25zLCB3aGVyZWJ5IGl0IGZpcnN0DQo+ID4+ICAgcmVt b3ZlcyB0aGUgTElTUCBoZWFkZXIgb2YgYW4gaW5ncmVzcyBwYWNrZXQgYW5kIHRoZW4gcHJlcGVu ZHMgYSBuZXcNCj4gPj4gICBMSVNQIGhlYWRlciB0byBhbiBlZ3Jlc3MgcGFja2V0Lg0KPiA+Pg0K PiA+PiBEaW5vDQo+ID4+DQo+ID4NCg0K From nobody Fri Jan 12 11:01:29 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1970512AF83 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 RCwmOE2dnz2C for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x230.google.com (mail-pg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::230]) (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 4FC37126D0C for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x230.google.com with SMTP id i196so5155281pgd.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FlA1YdBo0XYe41ixCUWEo16DLm5tpRT4HhBJ1zAvOC0=; b=P4WEAz53zMJK6cf7sfvfKwwtvdYWmdpHY5YnPahag4SeJyS5HEE/QTSIswRmBsAUQV W0PARCSh0c7/AZvMl1m4e4sw6O6SUZOcgdBrg3BhRwXO972HMEqZGBWLg6hG/LAXZaG5 d6lQTXK/lEQxQhKF+kIPrq9kc7QaDQWY/Uh3WSXJnruDed/z+oOdByot2tOWNO0a+z1z MvPYzCQbiVX6FmFWVptft5QOcT65KVXPdfv0vEaR3uy1ll2cklFwQiFsO81OOEcfeD+4 oKQhueaf+Go8fvH8Abjg6Xq0v48xPHyhls6e5gY5P1rUytcE05JXVe3xULM/uSEIh3kO rDsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FlA1YdBo0XYe41ixCUWEo16DLm5tpRT4HhBJ1zAvOC0=; b=emuOUs2mY83cBNZZzpTg7i+4DVZI2SEwUoz/6Lgww44bvqv1TeGj/mXVfsYBvzE8yR qFawMZO3/8RZkyhKPojgMqS0mgF6laJ96Po329D/TaY3LQ04FDJCSYMZ43/dD02in0HG E2xPZdAh83lHUWNSLANkz4OwH1TpuWWarO+W0NNgqCiU+5qRXbaasTY4mLLaM+WY67bU 2yL9Jp1rEwSJSHtjopwj64ADa0NnN3fApH/SwtcwuiliTRKiFsu8dfr4JH2F1lCzlber y2z2Fd+JqMyGlGALVq4G74qVTDEfkNUZpNMi77GSWTkY1OQ3Hii4/Ll8ftHj9BAvkYjS ditg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytenOCW6nzY1ro3MP0SGXbOoXyIqpgGKGAdwkNhR4QcbQjWl2ZXe cU2c+oASetTuPjymNKTymgCVe3YU X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovmW5Z+M1jTqcToe4+IDo388KrRKcAxFMTffoVWkZldO1dLqPqF5TGAqFcIW/g+rvybwSyujw== X-Received: by 10.101.89.3 with SMTP id f3mr9338101pgu.372.1515783685925; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d24sm20677932pfb.30.2018.01.12.11.01.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:24 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:01:02 -0800 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <91B4E943-A0BF-421E-B941-1D9944BE37BB@gmail.com> References: To: Albert Cabellos X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:01:28 -0000 > Hi all >=20 > As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following = changes which I believe have support.=20 Thanks a lot for doing this Albert. This is very helpful. > Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes = to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures = the most relevant ones. >=20 > Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes = listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. See my brief comments below. > WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: I won=E2=80=99t confirm or deny just yet. I want to hear from other WG = members. > B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 = respectively.=20 These definitions would be confusing. Because there are multiple = identifiers on an overlay. And there are multiple overlays as well. And = an instance-ID really defines an overlay. Also, putting the term = =E2=80=9Cidentifier=E2=80=9D with the underlay would confuse many = people. It has been decades where people redefine these terms. It just = seems endless and doesn=E2=80=99t improve the situation. And note there = isn=E2=80=99t one identifier for an underlay either. One could argue = that an underlay VPN could be RLOC space that is different than another = underlay VPN. But what identifies that VPN is the mechanism used to = realize that VPN and not the RLOCs that use it. > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap = operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text = needs to be validated by experts): These changes are reasonable. I am fine with adding them. Dino From nobody Mon Jan 15 01:53:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0298126B6D for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:53:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 vf9HsgcQR350 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]) (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 E643E127076 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:53:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 141so588581wme.3 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:53:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DdpT3J/N/kzo8is438e38H37P7ezkNuEE78FP9B+CMQ=; b=STYUC9W6zRnbEFdsC8el4xhx4CNL/w9jnUHt9T7pLZgLIANitWi/gUmKpuRyXwNQrl pw1YqokUgvDb4t7gxOhEVklxCmB0l2cLFYEKtpit1H/G5HRkoGs30D4+JahlljF6+Lje BhI6fiJWpHxG5EG1L6vEYr952PTeNQStajYc83ayxDfyqrAeqrKjgW8AelHLbZIceD6g +Mq5Gjqw9aXP2VjKtIZXwFUaTEXIYWjAaLAPlTenoh5Bj6ulXuQNpJiQXKUTKWqVZYtY fiYds8Fq2bdy4zkQ8dMrrjMV4PQFG4hDI3HvxQyeL+vWBMEhFEiRt4aT5qNSYYZg18vm Ncxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DdpT3J/N/kzo8is438e38H37P7ezkNuEE78FP9B+CMQ=; b=ISiSW0KJs3A8GtWJmEORM5wOvLWjcQfT5yOSBn53t5Uzs8SHNOaTKNECNFHjrKJxic vrYvzRUE7Bz/k0cgUevDx0x1vvqwYHoRyCcmqXwsyRWe7wTyCOTXk9FXt8SECKH+NV24 NKq9T9sKJKeKxTUWLReXqFnaBVD4nWv6jWCMLnIRcDo93ptIDLZpjV9n0R5To9zXnx0z ORdXCwMlQqlaq13TfRrdKRS8+bIAuWgJPL8PSzYWbrI6jb892JBJYWJ7vJi6dZrpEasd fUdqEruHeVtbGxzWDmOlTk/if3G7RDTBSrqtdUKNOBC2N+oSVDJI6wsCMbeT5DSxNkju /9AQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdsmjj1jNvk1uBFyaUxw53DGaB2Lj4f5r9jVm3y3qNv8ry+DCrE A1QnnhXEi80zLiZGVQj9Nb6Osw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBot7bWng9KxPMqYGAKuwX2JBkFNzfclJF4NEBlB9IyAoTx4zQPMhT4gm6KqGUsy9RgNeHFlhJw== X-Received: by 10.80.141.73 with SMTP id t9mr1149332edt.214.1516010015035; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:d0b5:8585:845:497f? ([2001:660:330f:a4:d0b5:8585:845:497f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o15sm17837193edk.25.2018.01.15.01.53.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:53:33 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:53:30 +0100 Cc: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:53:40 -0000 > On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:38, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Let me put it even simpler for you Luigi. Say someone wants to write a = client program that uses the LISP control-plane documented in 6833bis. A = perfect example of this is a lig client (RFC 6835).=20 >=20 > If SMRs and RLOC-Probing were to be documented in 6833bis, the lig = client implementor would be wondering if it needs to implement SMRs and = RLOC-probes. A lig client simply looks up an EID and prints out the = RLOC-records. >=20 > Conclusion, SMRs and RLOC-probes are used by xTRs to be able to run = the data-plane. SMRs and RLOC-probes are control-plane features used by xTRs to be able = to run the data-plane. As such they go in 6833bis. L. > xTRs are data-plane components. Therefore SMRs and RLOC-probes should = stay in 6830bis, the data-plane specification. >=20 > Dino >=20 >> On Jan 12, 2018, at 3:01 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 11 Jan 2018, at 18:50, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Thanks Alberto for your comments. Here is how I break up items in = the control-plane and the data-plane.=20 >>>=20 >>> Control-Plane (6833bis document): >>>=20 >>> (1) The definition of control-plane messages. These are already = documented in 6833bis. >>> (2) What components make up the control-plane that are not also in = the data-plane. That is Map-Servers, Map-Resovers, LISP-ALT nodes, = LISP-DDT nodes. These are already documented in 6833bis. >>>=20 >>> Data-Plane (6830bis document): >>>=20 >>> (1) What is required to move packets. Which includes the = encapsulation format and the database-mappings and map-cache xTRs use. = These are already documented in RFC6830bis. >>> (2) The components that make up the data-plane. That is ITRs, ETRs, = PxTRs, and RTRs. >>> (3) And the elements of operation that the components in (2) use. So = RLOC-probing and SMRs are explained in RFC6830bis because the components = in (2) use. They are using control-plane messages obviously but those = messages are defined in 6833bis. >>>=20 >>> Note that ETRs send SMRs, note ITRs and PITR send RLOC-probes. These = messages are not sent by any control-plane components. Another = data-plane can be defined to do its own OAM or map version updating and = use the messages defined in 6833bis to do that. But they could also = might =E2=80=9Clet me try to use the same map-cache mechanisms as LISP = but use a different encapsulation format=E2=80=9D. In this case, an = implementor or deployer would read 6830bis. >>>=20 >>> Having said that, people don=E2=80=99t create walls between getting = information so if they want to do their own data-plane they can still = read 6830bis. >>>=20 >>> Another point about SMRs, the entire section talks about what ITRs = and ETRs do. And these devices are data-plane components. Putting this = section in 6833bis would possibly surprise a reader implementing another = data-plane. For instance, a VXLAN data-plane reader would say =E2=80=9Cwha= t is an ITR and ETR? I have VTEPs=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> This reasoning does not hold. >>=20 >> [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ITR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt=20 >> 65 >> [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c ETR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt >> 83 >> [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop # grep -c xTR = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07.txt >> 20 >> [dhcp164-133] ~/Desktop #=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Whoever reads 6833bis has to know what an ITR and an ETR is and what = it does. >>=20 >> L. >>=20 >>=20 >>> Another point about SMRs, they can be data driven. This happens when = an ITR encapsulates to an ETR where the EID is no longer residing. That = ETR, could respond with a SMR to the ITR to inform it that it has out of = date mappings. This is all data-plane driven. Wouldn=E2=80=99t make = logical sense to put it in 6833bis. >>>=20 >>> Anyways, that is the way I look at it, >>> Dino >>>=20 >>>> On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Adding my two cents to this discussion, in the hope that it helps = with >>>> the convergence. >>>>=20 >>>> My original hope with the reorganization of the RFCs was to be able = to >>>> use the LISP control-plane with a non-LISP data-plane. Putting = aside >>>> the discussion of what goes where, and with some pragmatism in = mind, I >>>> think we're close to that with the current 6833bis. The major >>>> roadblock for me is the lack of SMR in that document, and I think = this >>>> aligns with the view of others in the list. >>>>=20 >>>> I believe that with the addition of SMR, 6833bis will have all the >>>> required pieces to put together a viable LISP deployment (using a >>>> non-LISP data-plane) without having to look into 6830bis. Sure, = there >>>> would be some mechanisms (e.g. RLOC probing) that would not be >>>> available using only 6833bis, but I could live without those. In >>>> addition, we could work on adding some extra explanation to the >>>> introduction of 6833bis so a non-familiar reader could make use of >>>> LISP without looking into 6830bis. >>>>=20 >>>> I think these two things (i.e. move SMR and extend 6833bis intro) >>>> would minimize the changes required on the current documents and = would >>>> allow us to reach some rough consensus to make progress with the = docs. >>>> What do you guys think? >>>>=20 >>>> Alberto >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>>> =46rom my perspective on the situation: >>>>>=20 >>>>> (1) I made changes exactly to text that was requested. >>>>> (2) I sometimes modify what the text that was requested. >>>>> (3) I disgree with some text so don=E2=80=99t include it. >>>>> (4) I have made many sub-revisions of -08. >>>>> (5) Comments are coming in throughout the review period and I = don=E2=80=99t know what revision you have read and what you have not = read. I don=E2=80=99t know if your comments are old or based on one of = the revisions. Because I see comments that I addressed but its not clear = to me you know that (or at least you have not told me). >>>>> (6) The changes in (1) and (2) have not been confirmed or denied = by commenters. So I don=E2=80=99t know if what I changed has been = accepted. >>>>> (7) Adding text to something that has changed won=E2=80=99t go in = properly. So referencing some offered text in a previous email can=E2=80=99= t be just inserted. >>>>>=20 >>>>> So -08 has been submitted. I don=E2=80=99t know what are the = outstanding issues at this point. So I need commenters to be specific. = This is what I suggest: >>>>>=20 >>>>> (1) List the open issues by commenting on the latest submitted = -08. >>>>> (2) Include text from the -08 draft and your comments follow with = suggested text. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Let=E2=80=99s use that as a base to comment and discuss further. I = can=E2=80=99t read your minds so I need more of your help. So please put = more effort into it. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks in advance for your support, >>>>> Dino >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Dino, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:54, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Guys, please look at the latest changes instead of hashing the = same arguments. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> This is what I am going to do. I am going to submit the myriad = of changes already agreed to and then we can open up comments again for = -08. I have been holding these diffs for a few weeks now and have = received little commentary on the latest changes. So if your points have = not been addressed, state them again AFTER reading the changes to -08. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I find this request unfair. >>>>>> I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and discussing this = document, now you just try to wash all out by requesting comments on = -08. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Please let's continue discussing on the open issues so to find a = solution. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> The diff of the changes are included yet again. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Dino >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Luigi Iannone = wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> HI Albert, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> thanks for your reply. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> My comments inline. (trimming what is OK for me) >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> On 27 Dec 2017, at 02:48, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) = [RFC1034] >>>>>>>>>> lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] = exchange. >>>>>>>>>> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to = set a >>>>>>>>>> host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public = Internet >>>>>>>>>> must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that >>>>>>>>>> manner; this means, among other things, that it must be = globally >>>>>>>>>> unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY >>>>>>>>>> be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the = network >>>>>>>>>> topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In >>>>>>>>>> addition, an EID block assigned to a site may have site-local >>>>>>>>>> structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure >>>>>>>>>> is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the = bit >>>>>>>>>> string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC >>>>>>>>>> for a different device. As the architecture is realized, if = a >>>>>>>>>> given bit string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to = the >>>>>>>>>> same entity in both cases. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Is the above sentence really necessary? >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Agreed, why not simplify the definitions. They are written = from the =E2=80=98Internet scalability mindset=E2=80=99, why not say = that an EID is an address of the overlay and an RLOC an address of the = overlay. This change may require further changes on the document so I am = not 100% sure if this is a good idea. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> For clarification I was just referring to the sentence: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> " As the architecture is realized, if a given bit string is = both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same entity in both = cases.=E2=80=9D >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I am wondering if such constrain is really necessary. If = namespaces are well scoped there is no need for this. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> About the following: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] = for >>>>>>>>>> further information. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> I would put the last two bullets in the definition of EID. It = simplifies the story here. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> I suggest to leave them here, I don=C2=B4t think that readers = start from the =E2=80=98Definition of terms=E2=80=99, these are relevant = concepts to understand LISP. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Good point about de definition of terms. What really bothers me = is the bullet organisation. What can be done is to merge these two = bullets with the previous one. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> The description of the encap/decap operation lacks of clarity = concerning how to deal with >>>>>>>>>> ECN bits and DSCP . >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 1. I think that the text should make explicitly the = difference between DSCP and ECN fields. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 2. How to deal with ECN should be part of the description of = the encap/decap not a paragraph apart. >>>>>>>>>> This basically means that half of the last paragraph should = be a bullet of the ITR/PITR encapsulation >>>>>>>>>> and the other half in the ETR/PETR operation. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Agreed, what about this (please comment): >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' = field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time = to Live' field. >>>>>>>>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD = be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in = the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' = field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time = to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less = than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform = this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment = across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed = when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>>>>>>>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD = be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in = the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>>>>>>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 = and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in = order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the = 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the = surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the = ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses = ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due = to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Text looks very good to me. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Large part of this section is about control plane issues and = as such should be put in 6833bis. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> What this section should state is that priority and weight = are used to select the RLOC to use. >>>>>>>>>> Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and = we do not know neither priority nor weight. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not = in this document. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Agree, I suggest moving it to 6833bis. What to leave in = 6830bis is less obvious, maybe something like (not final, just a couple = of ideas): >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> The data-plane must follow the state stored in the map-cache = to encapsulate and decapsulate packets. The map-cache is populated using = a control-plane, such as [6833bis]. ETRs encapsulate packets following = the Priorities and Weights stored in the map-cache. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I meant. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Actually we should merge this section with 'Routing Locator = Hashing' >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I think is a good idea. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>> 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in = 6833bis, with two exception: >>>>>>>>>> The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the = versioning subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> All of the rest 6833bis >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Actually I remember a suggestion about putting operations = issues like this in an OAM document which would be a good idea. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> So you are suggesting that the LISP control-plane does not = define any mechanism to update EID-to-RLOC mappings? >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Not exactly. Control-plane should discuss how to change the = mappings, but things like clock sweep is just management not a control = plane mechanism, as such it does not really needs to be standardised = because there are no interoperability issues, hence it make really sense = to put it elsewhere. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Luigi >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>> lisp@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Jan 15 01:56:27 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E9812D95F for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:56:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 9w6VQlzTI0P0 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (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 3C8DD12D953 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id r78so646757wme.0 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:56:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cKWrfFleEz+NG1u2Iw8I9hebubtKoIu7T6Umy+clg3g=; b=m3Dsp+zUn8Hg3LRrD36vQUbPEjX6iATYCwIKc0wrDmiQnMgd7Rvw5ttb8rML6oM3q8 4B+BKt8URRiq+wQd2hM05kj09L7ulKCKr0OJYHFU8rtpFKZtXNR+3KeTH3Gh2n6W/Mr1 R4lM9LFJm2Utzj96qjyX7LhAE0tDYf7G2m1LnjEY1e+QokCTCvLFn/CaGT9EavwrTLU0 S2bvQ0ZunnE/kNlJndSAj25W7OHA6tRgs2pyYBVfG6BNas8jBMPQTlwCEFL4rBaFZjWP Npx+THFZYlRCMUWcBW2Zem47s+sbyrHbZAoxgJOBCiPMIKnPItfkRObZ9+OHZ3fTgmP4 YifA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=cKWrfFleEz+NG1u2Iw8I9hebubtKoIu7T6Umy+clg3g=; b=uC1spUBpzgZcHbpGqb0pv3ukCUSJFCSi6uEq6LRWk7MZ20akejJ9s8fPwtmSh/CRmO N9pHgfEGWt9qzsnXKjVErIJkN4I82z3EOR3TRbtbMCHvx1hziau1OFGBVVTomt12URAh mzmU1aM9IHnG888zX/Je5ahciJySODDbb768wcipGeC5URaqPBqvGbV+PI+3c3PKQWWl fs9r40NfwKQnDfHAKU6BnFiwDSGYVvdusgmKygTM0vkmB1CuPfmmSdaVewn1IKqySmiy gfB1ymJ/M31u8KYTRLfoAAeJcE69519i3irNRucOFt2R5wuj8CUnyHdRkFpGbMItKzKf NrQQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytesQDXE+8seQnRl+U2C0aC9E9bREOdg2Iq72xDhZV7ixlhFT+rQ yUYNGUKv5ncEsB0xtPw3UXz6DQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovi9h9L9R4FGiZfrmW/xlFXorz4OJL8GMgBiiJKCGO1dDL5iHo2O40BkKb79k8CmU2m39QtYQ== X-Received: by 10.28.196.73 with SMTP id u70mr4669032wmf.116.1516010181582; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:d0b5:8585:845:497f? ([2001:660:330f:a4:d0b5:8585:845:497f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e127sm3908745wmg.10.2018.01.15.01.56.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 01:56:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:56:16 +0100 Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:25 -0000 Should I review 09 or 08? But please once you reply to this mail than you stick to the decision = until I review the document. L. > On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:30, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 > Here is a -09 proposal to add your requested change C below. All the = other points are still open for discussion. >=20 > Dino >=20 > >=20 > >=20 >> On Jan 12, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>=20 >> Hi all >>=20 >> As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following = changes which I believe have support.=20 >>=20 >> Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes = to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures = the most relevant ones. >>=20 >> Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes = listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. >>=20 >> WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: >>=20 >> ------- >>=20 >> A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI >>=20 >> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 = respectively.=20 >>=20 >> C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap = operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text = needs to be validated by experts): >>=20 >> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>=20 >> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' = field. >>=20 >> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied = from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of = IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>=20 >> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>=20 >> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>=20 >> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>=20 >> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied = from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of = IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>=20 >> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>=20 >> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>=20 >> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>=20 >> D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 = stating that the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the = map-cache (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an = OAM document. >>=20 >> E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D = considering the following changes: >>=20 >> * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) = and Echo-Nonce >> * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 = (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a = response) and RLOC probing >>=20 >>=20 >> F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis >>=20 >> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement = Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document >>=20 >>=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Jan 15 02:00:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F1712D96D for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:00:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ncv9jn9G4IBc for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:00:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (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 D0EFF12D967 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x4so11730127wmc.0 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:00:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xOm9dKa/wyJ3rDdXli/K1WUZ+a7C6GUlAcDncg6bAGg=; b=xLEluoAO2JAHL05aQpspjbSQrGAnnGwX7x/xknu7JBAfHCyK+YTjHXcoBmeLdw6mqo b7oMVPffnTkYA1rF9WzF1yCGxCPsO3KwBvjFBi4irigIbomTBlP+aIcz7LAO9GkDiHsQ wAN+d1uElK8W6FeQvh8BAXtcQ1dZq9g5TRDD31gC3F74wSWwmHxzD+x4wLQHvV3iJctN afJ5xizvuHUEqm5XvKMlqliDaWWbDIHpJ9f4Wg8cP1uNiZWkZ8kGylNfJ0O0phHUR6XF hokhKGMucgDWtC48I+dCdw/zNt67Y6NokLMHQT7mu1O9+JNduLZqwxZqEDi8xvsBoWG+ pNig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xOm9dKa/wyJ3rDdXli/K1WUZ+a7C6GUlAcDncg6bAGg=; b=Q5XiFSRHcYSNaWWi5E8vEJhE1yYyXbg98Xo7zfzAbjRKrciLK0fASz63CH61d04RxO oy0qE/E3CCbyWuZtvpbEz0l9c28Etx5DzLKE6orCqVcVRiaF3RfV0FRgXCBwwJKAAL/6 qHjhj2k9CWgkr2ut770wEVJSpIoczEXu2cCyz2LXsYggSEaobHbDIHCg71aGamucvmk3 +PUbE36oIlhPcDbQVxkyEniFOsWh2i4zyBaNrI2sxKJ04IZtI+gVYLKR16fDwXTZvLmC GPbvrqjerVeflPuGBa+ChIrz6qWu+jcRlNSPTTb1tWr4EuaVAgcMiThhQpZOAal4tTr7 O/mQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfr5tGz4SJWXfMu7BXbzdNgap4KpTSWJeBok6bxUZjIAhSjtCwi 6sSchEHu8yxk4nyCRO8AL5tsB/GAnQE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosqcYHyUopCEbJ9+pbr1JUKAHUVZegZISPhVJBTRKb+h8Pb/lHNpM+xVeq3IYiRvAvoiaJ5og== X-Received: by 10.80.129.225 with SMTP id 88mr17946043ede.19.1516010446319; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:d0b5:8585:845:497f? ([2001:660:330f:a4:d0b5:8585:845:497f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e56sm1151445edb.75.2018.01.15.02.00.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 02:00:44 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:00:41 +0100 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Albert Cabellos X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:00:49 -0000 Thanks for this Albert. On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:20, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >=20 > Hi all >=20 > As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following = changes which I believe have support.=20 >=20 > Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes = to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures = the most relevant ones. >=20 > Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes = listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. >=20 > WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: >=20 Folks, Albert did a very helpful thing by writing this summary. Pleas ALL provide feedback! Summary is short and to the point, so it will not take you days to read = it. Thank you all for the effort. Ciao L. = From nobody Mon Jan 15 09:56:10 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F280D12EADD for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fX2cyjvckPj1 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (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 2E6BF12EABE for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id m26so8421696pfj.11 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=R0lZGxethxh/sq0JJYkbdbPC9d7EPHXuct4ATD3rkLk=; b=PPfULLrnAAeMzdss4Zp1qU/EGHbk6B0ucdMCm6YuRNXAZQk2iehHQX1+ZMsCA0wv16 mUZgHuMDz4P12AXFRkvfTIFRVOb1jnYmp0tgi8CxyvgTpjccGbQ8vqE9Z3pxVO69Q0/K IYtDCCsPS3O3ovzOaG99CDX1UrJrKR0R6Ty/KLm8si8srmG0I4n2htNo8Fa2y4PI/m1W 9NHlAwv/twrDDU5Pq6de143fpRxMGgzG3y9a/oZ/8NMrPzUmO3+iSGWJZ/JJpzLu/t5X P2MIDtZkt4jzQkUhgaIEWTjM//Ef7+TStbP8Z5grhLHzGelf17Tbe4OuHDBpqrzoCEBk QXPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=R0lZGxethxh/sq0JJYkbdbPC9d7EPHXuct4ATD3rkLk=; b=GUfujcdIXw/u1sfz/KAUx5RtHqKAWEzIXe2ZuvtkOgJwRFRRxsflifSrH9tLNTNNCp RTH2EoREB/IENfx9U32GZJNgiD5ym4zc78/I0zWinDXIHGG1HRz06QO5OFveS/iL3owg jxcMof0vfFhwP3imbAJs3bhRunOayH7uU39METJ+Vrf2ch4vLty+gqIJTX/Kj3exQiAJ Jmg07Yv8z6hLYh1oY7PG2mhuPRkPK5z6EO+LlofxqKVLddpVCJ3eCWj0gg2XxPZr4C80 P1tafuIM9rRtmQweorg7BhgqkEZ53V9aNP8hV0/KHa+QuliC/8lhN9lzXrM3Dp10crs+ QyWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIh8wRrSKbbWM2oKOhk1dQ6j/PwLCaDONJpKfIylLRfhXNCFvf/ wckwzG8xVpooRuyNHXAhA6M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovlsyE2hdBDFX0v3UgShBRo2HtF7bG2mJhVuRYK1iHzWLyHZqh4H8NGIQhAd/Qz/VQa9P89hQ== X-Received: by 10.101.64.4 with SMTP id f4mr27153512pgp.200.1516038966850; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q67sm218184pfi.164.2018.01.15.09.56.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:56:06 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:55:38 -0800 Cc: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:56:09 -0000 > SMRs and RLOC-probes are control-plane features used by xTRs to be = able to run the data-plane. They are data-plane features that use control-plane messages. No other = devices sends an RLOC-probe (or SMR) then an xTR. And the elements of = operation are based on the map-cache. Any manipulation of the map-cache = SHOULD NOT go in 6833bis. Dino From nobody Mon Jan 15 09:57:41 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369B5126C0F for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 27seHmjUKX3F for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pg0-x22c.google.com (mail-pg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22c]) (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 4CA7412EAB9 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 136so7738812pgd.8 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iJMRJqkQ8IBZb9SAd+5/eiuJybi+YJTCpXd+izCbbdw=; b=Q/P8jBoDIKxi7nhwEBDqJ3lMk9Q/YdHGr0dedQqShV7UxYTRaR2lbJFQyCCd/RyA/E tf9AolbYRas4TKsILns8GfhnBNOqw5xp+dUPlhPSOt/FoybGPvMQVgbV6RawCqKD68Mc VSUxnq1eeyTmgLWJCivnwvg75l+gvaYaM4n0twC6s0wi8rhugaogjJzpzlIFoe1GxKvc eABGCUh1TfTvjAVJF1JsrlZROWIWRD++nV+3KU2IKuppeOgWkQKP6lEamAsewfz8Jyvr CfTcD/HyyU4baDTlxZZFV0LyNySI2TXj3prjrZxxhDVvAcuxVOahEy5/b7PpLJgGWQEf 3heQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iJMRJqkQ8IBZb9SAd+5/eiuJybi+YJTCpXd+izCbbdw=; b=algJAW3EZ+WneoSnJZkVERcexx8NrMK0R1x962kCJB7BaBwOebi5x7qYLRLMYS3b8p w7J2NpDmd5ISM5tPFyXpOjfGWw/T2hNqzw/cF2dHfv2qAKbNTUNiBVfzl8TG/x9IGdxk YnUwbwwZq9TjpUFLG2hpGG80vp3SSOXMETw3BEXaMOY4bnVVdaZ50u+74yBnn1jsz7Ls HFrJFgh8abMnKo1ZWjAj6jm2iM/Md8T6mI5zar1oVG5xvStHTi/Brc8aAGulYaVZvYi8 oSUJHiH/cSMyyuP8nxF6x20iiUx6q8IgqY6O28tB8IUZWyc/iVpPVuYIA+tqbhkXtmhV 2uHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfYJvjlT+dfZjf6AD9+ALDjgZj9o2Mi06SN7Dpvj6D1lq45leAN EuhB5DsFlbdMsPeP99wHXO4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouHi2uOj+HhDhmaBWeYu0UX+1OgbVzXL5FIcMNCmMGQE+kGVc1ZXFmlgBqjDL9B2MElncB+Ug== X-Received: by 10.99.131.74 with SMTP id h71mr5485085pge.373.1516039057712; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e190sm256982pfe.15.2018.01.15.09.57.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:57:36 -0800 Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> References: To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:57:40 -0000 > Should I review 09 or 08? It would be better to do -09. If I had known comments were coming from = you I would have waited to put in Albert=E2=80=99s text. What I did in = -09 is simply cut-and-paste his text. > But please once you reply to this mail than you stick to the decision = until I review the document. I won=E2=80=99t make any other changes until I see your comments. Dino >=20 > L. >=20 >=20 >> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:30, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >> Here is a -09 proposal to add your requested change C below. All the = other points are still open for discussion. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >> >>=20 >> >>=20 >>> On Jan 12, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi all >>>=20 >>> As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following = changes which I believe have support.=20 >>>=20 >>> Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial = changes to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below = captures the most relevant ones. >>>=20 >>> Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes = listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. >>>=20 >>> WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: >>>=20 >>> ------- >>>=20 >>> A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI >>>=20 >>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 = respectively.=20 >>>=20 >>> C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap = operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text = needs to be validated by experts): >>>=20 >>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>>=20 >>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' = field. >>>=20 >>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>=20 >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR = encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to = the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer header. >>>=20 >>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >>>=20 >>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >>>=20 >>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) = field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>=20 >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >>>=20 >>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >>>=20 >>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >>>=20 >>> D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 = stating that the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the = map-cache (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an = OAM document. >>>=20 >>> E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D = considering the following changes: >>>=20 >>> * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) = and Echo-Nonce >>> * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host = Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a = Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis >>>=20 >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement = Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Jan 15 10:10:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA5B12EAF7 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:10:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 3g_0F7cmW3Rp for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21BE812EAF5 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:10:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A11E4A1A09; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:10:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1516039853; bh=c2qe/U+PPlDCvZPUzC780vUfW7MphGCdMgUUvqFLjDU=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mL765WgxyjS4gE0rsLc/e1KdQroTiKiirVU+wivIjn7WyByXGNmJCAMgjzdcpqnxs /0d4jjOZDlq3XEUKPjZCdImS945M65x6aZvLz/ZsY4HNCVzUgSF3Db+4x+KOy8i/RD A6G/xd4vZbsCSNe1eMV3H6m0/WBIcpLVt+AmTJHk= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5A101C02E5; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:10:51 -0800 (PST) To: Dino Farinacci , Luigi Iannone Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <80b1523a-9396-ba8c-83b0-83812984bd1f@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:10:50 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:10:54 -0000 Let's try to separate things. 1) The fact that the messages are used only between xTRs does not tell us whether it is control or data. 2) The manipulation of map-cache may well be control (for example, if we were using a push-based control mechanism then map-cache control would be largely control. Personally, it looks to me like SMR is a control mechanism. It is information to control the operation of the xTR. It is not data plane behavior. It is driven from and drives control behavior. One could argue that RLOC-probes are more borderline in tha tthey themselves behave more like data packets. Still, my own thought process is to think of them as control operations. The actual argument that can be made is that the capabilities these provide could be provided by another mechanism when another data plane is used. But the capability needs to exist. Putting these mechanisms in the control plane document makes it much easier to have the discussion about the fact that the control plane needs these functions to be robust. After all, there is no goal that these are completely separate and independent entities. Even if it may turn out that with sufficient care the control plane can be used for other things. (Yes, my hats are bouncing.) I would really like to hear from other WG members about this. It is the WGs document. The chairs would prefer not to simply use their own judgment. So to repeat Luigi's plea: speak up. Yours, Joel On 1/15/18 12:55 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> SMRs and RLOC-probes are control-plane features used by xTRs to be able to run the data-plane. > > They are data-plane features that use control-plane messages. No other devices sends an RLOC-probe (or SMR) then an xTR. And the elements of operation are based on the map-cache. Any manipulation of the map-cache SHOULD NOT go in 6833bis. > > Dino > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From nobody Mon Jan 15 10:16:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FD712EB06 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 FMQ05JKO7o0g for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x229.google.com (mail-pf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::229]) (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 B0BEB12D863 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id a88so6939934pfe.12 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UviVKNd1UCLeuE1Cv3f0DgA/H9xKQmmmPA5/PmsIelc=; b=aGTcqb7dcTT5a8d/erNqWO4Tp6ARlNQ4zLZQnmxR15meo9+dTOI0fbGRJgzCYlHCw3 AOakuZAmvLqmL6Ut0Ja83P1WSroD/oe7VDIyjslYoaYR3j3jsAjL7wZoPpa7o3ZASCle MmK57/ZvdKIGAx2mDZkxmFHyV/v3WZbq1hIvLzWoC2Bc+eXPeMX1LhsnlQEQMZOAtjX1 JI9FHE2qgMPK4Ma9NxMcPNN1vSSQDVhtB30xUuQo/E4H+eojMkAsLO1FPWv1UfcoVu4P 2V0WCrLMGLDIVYRfkvY3FXeXM/ln+m3heRxgY1m7x04RdIpA87vDt2IhA0YsGM/shx1l If7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UviVKNd1UCLeuE1Cv3f0DgA/H9xKQmmmPA5/PmsIelc=; b=MgZpnx5WgRtk24OH7bwBRE5CgQwJ23LtfpI3rWhWViigW+2rkrRz12uLW0kfdifezI ezUW2iC301VdJ4L5MYw6+Nky4T9qhkjyNA0jZJgvWGC9GP6OatgXPtorA3eLnb83MYfa kwD3Wp2WWRjHHAHpmY4FXqTGUKQ184wcDc39jVFj8C7nYHeuVE6D5IY3QrAG1KCZE4G3 IJrKcp1H2rCN/E8D/CdmJQwjohsgPcRg5AXRWebJ/Jt73GLo87wfOYvCyzExNkFU4sVY /EsHm8PW1qz8jSqoT/yQ5zZxMX20BY5a+KEwc+vKyZ2lz9/2EYJRRl+DaBMlAjtHrow3 0u5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJ9kF4KDdGeXb3q/rZbYAoRWGeInG32W8MjEfMlM1GM5ktD7JcM UkkMjZcYA0rGD9Uogs8RNAo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotnjrzbANVwgZrfB40w3oEfFezIcpPq7JbABXqKW+KHbr6OBXB7X7P3ABRupVRmUDTng9rStg== X-Received: by 10.98.15.203 with SMTP id 72mr32349903pfp.104.1516040197246; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q14sm216390pgt.53.2018.01.15.10.16.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <80b1523a-9396-ba8c-83b0-83812984bd1f@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:16:35 -0800 Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9097FAFF-2D3D-4220-9F25-73D792A28EB5@gmail.com> References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> <80b1523a-9396-ba8c-83b0-83812984bd1f@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:16:39 -0000 > (Yes, my hats are bouncing.) > I would really like to hear from other WG members about this. It is = the WGs document. The chairs would prefer not to simply use their own = judgment. So to repeat Luigi's plea: speak up. > And if there is silence, then what? Dino From nobody Mon Jan 15 10:18:33 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B1612EAF3 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:18:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.721 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 3QfU6PDSf997 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:18:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56BBD12EADC for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449CF523284; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:18:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1516040304; bh=Ubhv9ffnXPt6+0cJ8BAwq16ojeNo7hNIxLbEe3hkPSA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fXs8VZ9BZ7Nn84CAysGUTMwibXyRBhipMViGdFemqdGjFPP5OIlHFIjOSvsejellM nWZYVUECRkszpywTMb/vJHdhIbDNiNrG/WHd9FslhZ2ORHKmGRuXlWWUTtzXNJ2Yps fHFfKJz0vXnKFUV4xYlGCDPWaD/k9TghJCB5Qcm0= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.225.209.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9512B1C0213; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:18:23 -0800 (PST) To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> <80b1523a-9396-ba8c-83b0-83812984bd1f@joelhalpern.com> <9097FAFF-2D3D-4220-9F25-73D792A28EB5@gmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <52222fd9-b63c-72d8-d584-ea2588a9d522@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:18:22 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9097FAFF-2D3D-4220-9F25-73D792A28EB5@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:18:32 -0000 If there is silence, the chairs will make their best judgment on behalf of the working group. That is our job. The other choice is that we block the document until there are enough voices. I would prefer not to do that. Yours, Joel On 1/15/18 1:16 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> (Yes, my hats are bouncing.) >> I would really like to hear from other WG members about this. It is the WGs document. The chairs would prefer not to simply use their own judgment. So to repeat Luigi's plea: speak up. >> > > And if there is silence, then what? > > Dino > From nobody Mon Jan 15 10:33:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FF712EB3F for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:33:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 BhhgUihGVMeB for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 3A48512EB35 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id c17so14049423iod.1 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:33:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tHnrPihc2LV+eODgdG+10vdiBdJFvrfnMZskyFK3NcE=; b=eoAF+FQBgyktwKoxRR0sBRoP68VLwjl+myYgVrq3QhRUZZG1VGyrJM0o+G5k6Vvqbk O9TshOL8DWdyCywe01kkV+yQGshQIew2v4cgMdTMQ558//dOacY7Yk93FOMdofcnCUrB t4Mav3ypSYKaYWwOQf2pJKPPFvgf+pAddRYGoLRa6reREqK3+l+9GM1q233uG4fwGoMV VnDwImeONTlTk0s5IBzOmwIRY6zkw34K1ZVmXr0w2K+f9RQzeE3DTugwAPjFTwzcNRbj FKa7MTXNsPw26lZ/jEymP8hGkTjUGL0ZAyyzh/MvGhSxuBGE3oqhyjOovVhdRYbWBS4V YeVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tHnrPihc2LV+eODgdG+10vdiBdJFvrfnMZskyFK3NcE=; b=oZILTAn+xE7DG9m6wHLxX4WkOrseQ1eC4bIZX74NoYX50P3V+Sk9+iV7RXvWQG5sHs a/9XKVVJj6phT7ANb+agK+xSaoh7FR40cgzwxn6nAoc0qBRviIGPW0Ahb5/JFj6PeVP+ H8CwcGLA4ANdjyqdu0sf7T9yu8XSOjviKpcxWkEf+EtVu0lLwTjGaIUnHCk9yz+7GY6J rWRmMV8YcqrwCtZAXaMniCDsJpAF6DVjSVxqdU8ZtGoV1cNSMdjRZamrQFLOlj64e3n+ TbPg0jhUKSiRerrhGcOgFFKGj5erzSPfJghUurYrmnxFOuVAuiR8kNqd2sgWiQidlhx/ wfOA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcSainC6Tk/CQxWlZjFLC0u3LLBisFvbiGv9s2MjuYjE2PuGDNk /x2g6VCQtT30YFFStgR5cvvuZqosji4KlYGNuDQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouw47YJNTPGJUyHrB5jInTQ/DcbShEh8gu4vp8tqv/IEAW5J2EonAgVv/mNCqOZzZ/X9pCoWmwJe/C9V02/A+o= X-Received: by 10.107.205.203 with SMTP id d194mr33521481iog.42.1516041182399; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.181.65 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 10:32:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:32:41 +0100 Message-ID: To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 18:33:05 -0000 On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: >> SMRs and RLOC-probes are control-plane features used by xTRs to be able to run the data-plane. > > They are data-plane features that use control-plane messages. No other devices sends an RLOC-probe (or SMR) then an xTR. IMHO I think that the SMR should go into the control-plane document. I believe that there are many cases (specially from an SDN point of view) where you may want to send SMRs from entities other than xTRs. There's already a draft [1] that proposes that SMRs can also be sent by MSMRs. That draft is documenting what has been implemented and running on OpenDaylight for a while now. Furthermore, lig-lispmob [2] supports sending SMRs on demand through a CLI without running an xTR. I've found that capability useful on many occasions. Alberto [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-ms-smr-04 [2] https://github.com/LISPmob/lig-lispmob From nobody Mon Jan 15 11:10:40 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C780512D959 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 CQuauRRXglJ6 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pl0-x22d.google.com (mail-pl0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) (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 0632B12EB78 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pl0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 62so4345078pld.7 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VyZ+pGq7LDcOE6PeRz7amPAjKu321vFMmBlpHVCwqGU=; b=mgmOAtWSRnu7dZoqVY6pV4PRY21Cv6ERrElt6TFwz4eizaN2sUiuoFdOzLzO9m6J3u CHIOmZ741KjoQFj0XX1R4xFR2CQNwHj4Xiqd3QDgnonKA8EtIDfvg1VEkBkHJa52LUuZ OKwS61kLHPeXcQYcQ+4OjA4NcDjQicB0iMHEPRESxbtIlUEHF/KQzJnKMj5LRnvPLPmf wKdjnYzIeYsMuVjoqEy/qUdTJYqLnaeBCxufgntarXBLcMYZKBAeNs+jsP0t+MRRn6M0 J/bYyMYWegmHYucDuvY0ooXNmMeo1X1DyfGU9WwCtaHl/ksLpHKdx+YkNouk06rW8HHj EnPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=VyZ+pGq7LDcOE6PeRz7amPAjKu321vFMmBlpHVCwqGU=; b=YuixqjGYbzBcQhmaTP0b84JYtDOtRCzj6hKWyIwZJkypFEqESFq6sKSvDShcmzT4Vn /Oea7P+4+En93E5VEh2qBEcufXQgx2kLRiA8nU+S/vm1FcfQupdpKuckcAhtfnmOG4Kx X4TN/kBC6PtAVrW6zFrco11r5rTcudnCTNDQlSEcqSD8HfGrBI/nxJuV4gx9lmCeiznP tO1G8G3RAQejY7iN+xFQ1OSbMxf1m7UNPsbVXurWKUv9w0W1yRk4bmkfOGxt/SYy1ERK PvhZO9moOI0uCOj+20YBzvc0Pnybt9UA54ih0KQ78gtxHGJ/n0yOqE1chmQ6bCI+acLf +dfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKv2RSSpDfvMhrhpW1Rw5ZxVFgHOpdQINKuYKd3nmcBoEOMFUtL KBmuKwcOUqzmhxIlA9VAeD0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos7fBBuVevhGaMR2/HgGzySbx8xSDsuqa5gHuGKWbb5TkuKeqLckatWIkcoNgJXqia9jcdXng== X-Received: by 10.159.242.196 with SMTP id x4mr28168719plw.408.1516043437687; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.197.31.157] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 26sm404402pfq.102.2018.01.15.11.10.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:10:35 -0800 Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> To: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:10:40 -0000 I=E2=80=99d be willing to make a deal. SMRs go to 6833bis and RLOC-probes stay in 6830bis. Since RLOC-probes = are connected (semantically) to echo-noncing which use bits in the LISP = header. Dino > On Jan 15, 2018, at 10:32 AM, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal = wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Dino Farinacci = wrote: >>> SMRs and RLOC-probes are control-plane features used by xTRs to be = able to run the data-plane. >>=20 >> They are data-plane features that use control-plane messages. No = other devices sends an RLOC-probe (or SMR) then an xTR. >=20 > IMHO I think that the SMR should go into the control-plane document. I > believe that there are many cases (specially from an SDN point of > view) where you may want to send SMRs from entities other than xTRs. >=20 > There's already a draft [1] that proposes that SMRs can also be sent > by MSMRs. That draft is documenting what has been implemented and > running on OpenDaylight for a while now. >=20 > Furthermore, lig-lispmob [2] supports sending SMRs on demand through a > CLI without running an xTR. I've found that capability useful on many > occasions. >=20 > Alberto >=20 > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-ms-smr-04 > [2] https://github.com/LISPmob/lig-lispmob From nobody Mon Jan 15 11:57:49 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56ED312EBB9 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:57:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 z7rhR2aq8_PW for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BC1D12EBDC for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 11:57:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2492; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516046262; x=1517255862; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=gJN8Mqx6ldyxZRTl67lh8f+cuzS451Jkr9QxWdQkIJo=; b=ECHv46hG4aUMHw2sT4ts15QYoi4oUFt2fe3LOBxc+RV3tcc9zVoKUEfj tBsKJV5wwggICclAQFpqJiIh7r9flr+vnwzoNrzfyAFmLp49A2FVPHAPi 8cDNzwDfUc+tg/f9lEtaFK1bkU5qx9wZmw0lj56Gz2R/Rum4sCPXCueDx k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BZAQCFBl1a/4oNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNBZnQnB4QMiiSOX4FbJ4kGjiaCFgoYC4UYAhqENz8YAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBayiFIwEBAQMBAQEhEToLEAIBCBgCAiYCAgIfBgsVEAIEAQ0FihsDDQgQq?= =?us-ascii?q?QOCJ4c4DYIEAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBD4VCgVeBaSkMgnmCa0Q?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQIBggWDADGCNAWjJz0CiAqIPYUClBCNPkCIegIRGQGBOwEfOYFQbxU9KgGBf?= =?us-ascii?q?4RXeIt1AYEWAQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,365,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="56964168" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2018 19:57:41 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0FJvfoG008990 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:57:41 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:57:40 -0600 Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:57:40 -0600 From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" To: Dino Farinacci , Alberto Rodriguez-Natal CC: "lisp@ietf.org list" Thread-Topic: [lisp] 6830bis Review Thread-Index: AQHTdYn4waOx1EJhKUiOK6AT86ziIKNW4xgAgBToqRuAAJOugIABDoqAgAB73wCAAV6gAIAAOj8AgAEgNQCAAG7tgIAENQ0AgACGtQCAAApagIAACpaAgAANLQA= Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:57:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <907CD955-B043-4728-ABD6-5AD96192EC5F@inria.fr> <4EAD1E98-E8E7-4A0A-8300-2D185B9109CC@gigix.net> <49EE7D2D-FC59-42F1-A93A-B315D4D6420E@gigix.net> <98C25E20-BD78-462A-BDB4-572AA24C1A97@gigix.net> <829870A2-2D90-4967-983A-56F62E765796@gmail.com> <5754BC06-9CBD-4C52-9CD6-402610EAABF1@gigix.net> <0F4F11DF-07B6-407D-BE5F-BBF1777D1CF2@gigix.net> <232ACD23-F1E0-49B0-983F-D17F773A99CA@gmail.com> <2241290D-29C3-4ACB-9726-ACC6DD42E8CE@gigix.net> <29E4D891-E429-4A71-BFC3-276F730EA5C6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.114] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] 6830bis Review X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:57:48 -0000 SSBhbHNvIGJlbGlldmUgU01ScyBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW4gdGhlIENQIGRvYy4gSSB3b3VsZCBzdXBw b3J0IERpbm/igJlzICBwcm9wb3NhbCBiZWxvdy4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNClJlc2hhZC4NCg0KT24g MjAxOC0wMS0xNSwgMjoxMCBQTSwgImxpc3Agb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIERpbm8gRmFyaW5hY2NpIiA8 bGlzcC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBmYXJpbmFjY2lAZ21haWwuY29tPiB3 cm90ZToNCg0KICAgIEnigJlkIGJlIHdpbGxpbmcgdG8gbWFrZSBhIGRlYWwuDQogICAgDQogICAg U01ScyBnbyB0byA2ODMzYmlzIGFuZCBSTE9DLXByb2JlcyBzdGF5IGluIDY4MzBiaXMuIFNpbmNl IFJMT0MtcHJvYmVzIGFyZSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgKHNlbWFudGljYWxseSkgdG8gZWNoby1ub25jaW5n IHdoaWNoIHVzZSBiaXRzIGluIHRoZSBMSVNQIGhlYWRlci4NCiAgICANCiAgICBEaW5vDQogICAg DQogICAgPiBPbiBKYW4gMTUsIDIwMTgsIGF0IDEwOjMyIEFNLCBBbGJlcnRvIFJvZHJpZ3Vlei1O YXRhbCA8cm9kcmlndWV6bmF0YWxAZ21haWwuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCiAgICA+IA0KICAgID4gT24g TW9uLCBKYW4gMTUsIDIwMTggYXQgNjo1NSBQTSwgRGlubyBGYXJpbmFjY2kgPGZhcmluYWNjaUBn bWFpbC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KICAgID4+PiBTTVJzIGFuZCBSTE9DLXByb2JlcyBhcmUgY29udHJv bC1wbGFuZSBmZWF0dXJlcyB1c2VkIGJ5IHhUUnMgdG8gYmUgYWJsZSB0byBydW4gdGhlIGRhdGEt cGxhbmUuDQogICAgPj4gDQogICAgPj4gVGhleSBhcmUgZGF0YS1wbGFuZSBmZWF0dXJlcyB0aGF0 IHVzZSBjb250cm9sLXBsYW5lIG1lc3NhZ2VzLiBObyBvdGhlciBkZXZpY2VzIHNlbmRzIGFuIFJM T0MtcHJvYmUgKG9yIFNNUikgdGhlbiBhbiB4VFIuDQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+IElNSE8gSSB0aGlu ayB0aGF0IHRoZSBTTVIgc2hvdWxkIGdvIGludG8gdGhlIGNvbnRyb2wtcGxhbmUgZG9jdW1lbnQu IEkNCiAgICA+IGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgbWFueSBjYXNlcyAoc3BlY2lhbGx5IGZy b20gYW4gU0ROIHBvaW50IG9mDQogICAgPiB2aWV3KSB3aGVyZSB5b3UgbWF5IHdhbnQgdG8gc2Vu ZCBTTVJzIGZyb20gZW50aXRpZXMgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB4VFJzLg0KICAgID4gDQogICAgPiBUaGVy ZSdzIGFscmVhZHkgYSBkcmFmdCBbMV0gdGhhdCBwcm9wb3NlcyB0aGF0IFNNUnMgY2FuIGFsc28g YmUgc2VudA0KICAgID4gYnkgTVNNUnMuIFRoYXQgZHJhZnQgaXMgZG9jdW1lbnRpbmcgd2hhdCBo YXMgYmVlbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBhbmQNCiAgICA+IHJ1bm5pbmcgb24gT3BlbkRheWxpZ2h0IGZv ciBhIHdoaWxlIG5vdy4NCiAgICA+IA0KICAgID4gRnVydGhlcm1vcmUsIGxpZy1saXNwbW9iIFsy XSBzdXBwb3J0cyBzZW5kaW5nIFNNUnMgb24gZGVtYW5kIHRocm91Z2ggYQ0KICAgID4gQ0xJIHdp dGhvdXQgcnVubmluZyBhbiB4VFIuIEkndmUgZm91bmQgdGhhdCBjYXBhYmlsaXR5IHVzZWZ1bCBv biBtYW55DQogICAgPiBvY2Nhc2lvbnMuDQogICAgPiANCiAgICA+IEFsYmVydG8NCiAgICA+IA0K ICAgID4gWzFdIGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1yb2RyaWd1ZXpuYXRh bC1saXNwLW1zLXNtci0wNA0KICAgID4gWzJdIGh0dHBzOi8vZ2l0aHViLmNvbS9MSVNQbW9iL2xp Zy1saXNwbW9iDQogICAgDQogICAgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX18NCiAgICBsaXNwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KICAgIGxpc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCiAg ICBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpc3ANCiAgICANCg0K From nobody Tue Jan 16 13:25:42 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87AD012EB31 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Pmdf0rwCK8MA for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-x22d.google.com (mail-it0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (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 BB15012E3AE for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x42so6602068ita.4 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OefOSJllpQkr3G+rurxjHo9g1PXmA8fMxSQtEQdwhzw=; b=ursrI54iZ7QzUI43RN8IXCt7VQ677LzMiuJfeCYfOSXPlrKcsp0vhAdF1yc2BzcSaU UMYeBLQMGzkrXA0IjhpSRfiYOlNeW9bpMiV2b3e0VtQ/Z+Bz+SjtHThm77OjFJvYeXUH 9uiYnDzDAQMXS+jZJpYeel3WiczbzbjlyNm1wffkj/sMyzxVW2WpgbfvNVcPqVSBu2BW 8qttsCJa421FRlzsYSgc7kRccH1QOe3+DLA/7PlfFIqAHS5P7lIkd3NdSP1nn+JbyGS6 8hW2F+HMmuc8nm4rI29YtjyviR6gnVdz+2fZmQbdWawRYd+SyiNCOrni2IL4h3j6WfNY eyeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OefOSJllpQkr3G+rurxjHo9g1PXmA8fMxSQtEQdwhzw=; b=rg0rw3URlJQhB38icnre/PoWx57PaokJjNzzwawq+B0kc9p1HH5vec2/56x31i74Fg jS99rWGQYJVoWxwA9iRhlnszZ2Orjqjob0xSIhIrJOBC9gidk5cTl7As/MebFs4x/wRR 4P+2sLfKvBxIXTVKLWmbvgzLLH0VaFioml+sxnArnBBsWEd9x01MTznwrmIK4UZx1Em3 czCQo4FMcGepCwximiwiKS7somDpWeGTyoJyht8TitoatDQxyTJUrg6vKUm8Jn8qRFqr 76kUBV4M9R+i1cWjTc85VsRumPaEZ614QISYrLRy6QJT1zQkPitPs4qrTdOR/Kh92Qz8 bF9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytejd0X0eKrvpucR/t2VchfoiJ1gdKT++xwys8t8UO3iTqlLuP8f 9pi35wQ1mEGlAuWF8mhYGcBCac6JG1mBAeiaGSU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovSD3KzdWLg76ThhJYh6CUThhSq6w6rtW/JEgdSZkCao/xJJKMgOtGqnC6G7+Kr3KvOyVF1WcQQVDJY7x4RX18= X-Received: by 10.36.243.7 with SMTP id t7mr19691374ith.139.1516137937931; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.181.65 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:25:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: To: Albert Cabellos Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 21:25:40 -0000 Thanks for the summary Albert. I can confirm a few points but I prefer to abstain on those I don't have a strong opinion. Answers and comments inline. Thanks, Alberto On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Albert Cabellos wrote: > A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI Confirm. I'm fine with LISP not being so focused on the original Internet use-case. > B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the over= lay=E2=80=99 and > =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively. Abstain. I'd prefer to avoid using "identifier" in anything regarding the underlay but I could be fine with the proposed text. > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation > concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be > validated by experts): Confirm. The new text looks good to me. > D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating t= hat the data-plane > MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities and weights),= the > remaining text should go to an OAM document. Abstain. I see the value of an independent OAM document but I don't see it as a requirement to advance 6830bis. > E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D consid= ering the following > changes: > > * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and > Echo-Nonce > * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hi= nts > from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) > and RLOC probing Abstain. I'd personally prefer to move those mechanisms that rely on control-plane messages (i.e. 5 - receive a MapReply) to the control-plane document but I'd not oppose to keep them on the data-plane doc. > F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis Confirm. This is one of the major results I hope to see out of this discussion. > G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement > Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document Abstain. Same comment as above regarding a separate OAM document. From nobody Thu Jan 18 13:56:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AF012946D for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:56:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 2JcC6cWwA5dt for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:56:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D44EB126C83 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:56:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16321; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1516312584; x=1517522184; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=Pu4v3BvbCHaFfMI2vKIaZrR4NwmDb7WThNaAvHdyAXc=; b=BpfebiW9c3YwgGBC06Khdp7c7DFdW/OlzzeTSMqSJ/NHgMxJNmj7eBjE DzNwQYJYmq27XvrBqRfdtbZmKILDRFVdKODQwObsvET/uLLu1tYF9Xbjj LCwFatlDh3WYwij0vroXAb24P/NijaMb00NlMK2Smadf/O9EUY/WP/4tT g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CGAgBDF2Fa/4kNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNBZnQng12ZBIICkV+FUoIWChgBCoUYAoReQBcBAQEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUjAQEBAwEBASFIAxALCxgqAgInMBMGAgEBiicIEKpVgicmiSMBAQEBAQUBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBHAWGUYFXgWgpgwWDLwEBAoFJgz2CZQWTQ4Y4iXSMC4lLghmGHoNvh2+?= =?us-ascii?q?CB5UzgTwgATeBUDIaCBsVPYIqglQcggggN4owASUHgh0BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,378,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="57978838" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jan 2018 21:56:23 +0000 Received: from [10.157.21.133] ([10.157.21.133]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0ILuN3A013843 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:56:23 GMT To: lisp@ietf.org References: From: Fabio Maino Message-ID: <320d9eff-67ec-cf2d-b485-4e54a722bc45@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 13:56:24 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------131D96C858A6B205B0389EF5" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:56:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------131D96C858A6B205B0389EF5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 1/12/18 8:20 AM, Albert Cabellos wrote: > Hi all > > As editor of 6830bis I´d like to confirm or deny the following changes > which I believe have support. > > Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes > to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures > the most relevant ones. > > Also note that I don´t necessarily agree with all the changes listed > below, but that´s an opinion with a different hat. > > WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: > > ------- > > A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI confirm. I think one of the goals of the charter was to to open up to a broad set of use cases where that terminology might not be meaningful. > > B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ > and ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively. personally, I'm not keen to this change of terminology. EID and RLOC have become of common use, and well understood, even outside of the LISP circles. I've often assisted to conversations in non-LISP groups where people use the term LISP EID/RLOC to qualify IP addresses in the overlay/underlay. > > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap > operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text > needs to be validated by experts): > > When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: > > o  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in > the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to > Live' field. > > o  The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) > field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD > be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, > in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. > > o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and > 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in > order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR > encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner > header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit > 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. > > When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: > >  o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, > in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time > to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is > less than the Time to Live value of the inner header.  Failing to > perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header > to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This > check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a > packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. > > o  The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) > field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD > be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, > in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. > > o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and > 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in > order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If > the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the > value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then > ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the > stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used > to forward the packet beyond the ETR.  These requirements preserve > CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel > and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between > the tunnel endpoints. > > Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to > re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that > the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old > outer header minus 1. > > Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it > preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; > second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of > looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated > tunnels due to misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for TTL > exception handling for traceroute packets. > > Confirm. > D.- Simplify section ‘Router Locator Selection’ stating that the > data-plane MUST follow what´s stored in the map-cache (priorities and > weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document. Confirm on the section semplification. Wrt putting the rest in a separate OAM document, I don't have a strong opinion. Probably not having a new document requires less work to be done that makes me lean toward NOT having a new OAM document. > > E.- Rewrite Section “Routing Locator Reachability” considering the > following changes: > > *    Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a > data-packet) and Echo-Nonce > *    Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host > Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 > (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing > > Confirm. > > F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis Confirm. > > G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement > Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document > I'm fine with both options. Probably not having a new document requires less work to be done that makes me lean toward NOT having a new OAM document. Thanks, Fabio > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --------------131D96C858A6B205B0389EF5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 1/12/18 8:20 AM, Albert Cabellos wrote:
Hi all

As editor of 6830bis I´d like to confirm or deny the following changes which I believe have support.

Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures the most relevant ones.

Also note that I don´t necessarily agree with all the changes listed below, but that´s an opinion with a different hat.

WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY:

-------

A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI
confirm.

I think one of the goals of the charter was to to open up to a broad set of use cases where that terminology might not be meaningful.


B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as ‘identifier of the overlay’ and ‘identifier of the underlay’ respectively.

personally, I'm not keen to this change of terminology.

EID and RLOC have become of common use, and well understood, even outside of the LISP circles. I've often assisted to conversations in non-LISP groups where people use the term LISP EID/RLOC to qualify IP addresses in the overlay/underlay.



C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be validated by experts):

When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

o  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field.

o  The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.

o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.

When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

 o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header.  Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.

o  The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.

o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR.  These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints.

Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1.

Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets.

Confirm.


D.- Simplify section ‘Router Locator Selection’ stating that the data-plane MUST follow what´s stored in the map-cache (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document.
Confirm on the section semplification.

Wrt putting the rest in a separate OAM document, I don't have a strong opinion. Probably not having a new document requires less work to be done that makes me lean toward NOT having a new OAM document.


E.- Rewrite Section “Routing Locator Reachability” considering the following changes:

*    Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce
*    Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing


Confirm.


F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis

Confirm.

G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document

 

I'm fine with both options. Probably not having a new document requires less work to be done that makes me lean toward NOT having a new OAM document.


Thanks,
Fabio



_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


--------------131D96C858A6B205B0389EF5-- From nobody Mon Jan 22 02:20:00 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36BD11270AE for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:19:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7TziQ3jefAG3 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:19:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 9DEF71243F6 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:19:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id r78so15716905wme.0 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:19:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uX05bVNRPB6emAQOU8KkrmppWI2MpwTYb66g/y1x/uw=; b=U9VdBUtcFZs+vc3jsPE9p5MoiM5jFH9r6P0OnLP9Lw05sFlQ6VtdCZygs58/Rq6XBM UY/P5SZLCy5G+8iaMorX8iUJ34jzY/zMRqAIIjOCeX/joK/fe++KM/h6xrnBylQNyLe8 aYhfc2CpJBf2TykN+xnEG4XVCf5F6sIGao894Dx4awQOSlXAJp4LP6Dr8i4ImRdgIJW7 SjPmgedYe7PHYUR0rL1d2FsFz0oWjBJSy2N5tgCkN+wG5pdkGPdstTTLdyoRUEw79UI1 Hlw4wDjubA3mIZXGkhrNm0mcHfNNln+PRy5LrkD3qUFIh7ZXDgBLvSFcc1ZLKIcf4AZ5 d1dQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uX05bVNRPB6emAQOU8KkrmppWI2MpwTYb66g/y1x/uw=; b=P7V+PnhOZ/gBk5CP5Ac5zl6yvLpK/Tic5B96Xq+jQZr/sKDufRrHAQfpyb1GTlcYr0 uVqDMI36Jg9qHhHHHetNSUD4r2UyuQqkrNqhyDYVOIMv3Fl9CDKVktjcNh4qzMKfyiAh HSIDO2evELxhCcyqt3kp/aUVliTmSiEJ+iJheIPPYvYuElKwGcAmLj/NldQ/LTtc2cGj a5MP0RzUSp2DpYnfQukPdRU3g91iPm1QQi0SpL6ni/qW1B1UAl2a3vQij/EiYr9Dxwu6 qNj4nP3Re/InsY1LOem/rcjZM94FFh5eGjp8HzkYw+teOMNsfpM+OvaxnhQgVwJyBI1n KA5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytePc5XXBgiQbTfE6eIM6wOWXmu71kHAM0vwEGirRpGmVETQL9bR w4wschRdQBH3lZwq1w7KVTuL0R5QhXg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225QhneX39Sanqtwl3Dq+7gSsGfHI7TnKrdtV/CLeKY6Lr2wsk/VbH/27ozZ+O30oyuh9vTTYw== X-Received: by 10.28.207.131 with SMTP id f125mr4316786wmg.32.1516616394577; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:c02:a843:8d38:b067? ([2001:660:330f:a4:c02:a843:8d38:b067]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p32sm19211281wrc.9.2018.01.22.02.19.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 02:19:53 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <3fde0530-6c0d-6ad2-6739-fddc71bcb024@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:20:12 +0100 Cc: lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <04F86451-44DE-448A-9684-113FC3877A61@gigix.net> References: <151335440470.30447.859080782552191016@ietfa.amsl.com> <3fde0530-6c0d-6ad2-6739-fddc71bcb024@joelhalpern.com> To: "lisp@ietf.org list" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Adoption call: draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 10:19:59 -0000 Hi All, the call for adoption for this document is now closed. On the mailing list there was quite a number of messages in support of = the document, clearly showing a consensus for adoption. Authors are invited to submit a new version of the document named: = draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00.txt Thanks to all people that expressed their opinion. Ciao Luigi & Joel > On 15 Dec 2017, at 17:23, Joel Halpern wrote: >=20 > The authors of the lisp-gpe draft (below) have requested working group = adoption for this document. >=20 > This email starts a two week last call for working group adoption of = this document. >=20 > Please respond, positively or negatively. Silence does NOT mean = consent. Please include explanation / motivation / reasoning for your = view. >=20 > Also remember that this is not a last call. Once the document is = adopted (assuming it is), we as a working group can make changes as = needed. The primary quesitonin this call is whether this is a good = basis for work we want to do. >=20 > Thank you, > Joel (& Luigi) >=20 >=20 > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: I-D Action: draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04.txt > Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:13:24 -0800 > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >=20 >=20 > Title : LISP Generic Protocol Extension > Authors : Darrel Lewis > John Lemon > Puneet Agarwal > Larry Kreeger > Paul Quinn > Michael Smith > Navindra Yadav > Fabio Maino > Filename : draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2017-12-15 >=20 > Abstract: > This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol > (LISP), via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-protocol > encapsulation. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe/ >=20 > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-lewis-lisp-gpe-04 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp From nobody Mon Jan 22 19:17:55 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418511205D3 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 kmssU2gbkWq1 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (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 9CCC312D948 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id d8so17810435qtm.0 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=duwE179hWvSFbIPMJ9QBNe0EVdTycEw0FsUPkJ5Ew+E=; b=pmK7Hrq8yf4o6MlTZ+jv0L6Nq54NDoQ7mZLot2XRq9Wa9stvI3nKQNj5hseZQr7z7Z 2K1k+zpAP+c9RC5ujZCwRx+MruvmTHUp76yZT0JTVSTuXOSv+al+Ow8XQWYkriBOutsY xcZNGQgUqzK+7Nzl6r0xmqgHRWN3fuYpX0tb1sKCn7YHdJHVJuFEK2NNrjaa6azxBcUi 42D4MfpvgrdLgyVwSZ13eu2SPKGBrSaiQC+xObPyceHeDz9hljQUDJaH5NqhcaFIlg9t LMHv7KwnJYEs4GZ3QXy9LmUSqhTJnoDphjrJqiieKprDfRpwo7qu9h9aVWc+X5E0nlGg ff/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=duwE179hWvSFbIPMJ9QBNe0EVdTycEw0FsUPkJ5Ew+E=; b=a7NzQrAVM2BbcPoXFVyWPnNzCD1CzmTy1OnKnH4fYA30FJhRgS88MEbByoaWqvLfKa 5CmiaDQilsg1H/y/EontchN6UgluT7s0427XvBJ4Mbs4wRBxGmwePcvngBPD6gXLZoDX dSfC4vrDSqzNFaAzQwqORxSBxw/G8YHpEmR7nnhp42VQJUujNzelAiOIM3wBrS6mcudk lVCII2Dn3RxHzOM+bFUrEhisvQXOCY10KI/I7/+6iGSN7QvaXYAGQclAD595w24da8ka htq2/EmmzEQm2sTKOPgjw4GJHP3LovtRx5XtFqo1pHtU6/jneZLgrwuOmjd3Gh7pjTV9 ZdOQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcb2ORU5TTcjxiLPfa8slvCaU4Fn3EeApBIHj/e8/EgE8C7leNB JgKMtB4I0TjpLdAQcRuWSRhzDlGn X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225rXI7RJHW0Kj9XZjCDGMvwDQOpblQzCwBGAlo62CCN84zu8znASremRlr8SIt/yph9O+F45A== X-Received: by 10.55.144.2 with SMTP id s2mr1468473qkd.257.1516677451544; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.3.135] (107-0-203-189-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.203.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w33sm12414500qtj.10.2018.01.22.19.17.28 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:28 -0800 (PST) From: Dino Farinacci Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD9BA9A4-7E6E-43EF-8C91-A49FDC240FDC" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:17:28 -0800 To: "lisp@ietf.org list" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] Okay to publish this? X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:17:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AD9BA9A4-7E6E-43EF-8C91-A49FDC240FDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It=E2=80=99s been 10 days. Dino --Apple-Mail=_AD9BA9A4-7E6E-43EF-8C91-A49FDC240FDC Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=rfcdiff.html Content-Type: text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Diff: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt - = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20
< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt  =  draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt >
=
Network Working = Group D. Farinacci = Network Working Group = D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft = V. Fuller Internet-Draft = V. Fuller
Intended status: = Standards Track D. Meyer = Intended status: Standards Track = D. Meyer
Expires: July = 13, 2018 = D. Lewis Expires: July 16, 2018 = D. Lewis
= Cisco Systems = Cisco Systems
= A. Cabellos (Ed.) = A. Cabellos (Ed.)
= UPC/BarcelonaTech = UPC/BarcelonaTech
= January = 9, 2018 = January = 12, 2018
=
= The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol = (LISP)
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 = = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
=
Abstract = Abstract
=
This document = describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID This document describes the data-plane protocol for = the Locator/ID
Separation = Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point = Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines = two namespaces, End-point
Identifiers = (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and = Routing Locators
(RLOCs) that = identify network attachment points. With this, LISP (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. = With this, LISP
effectively = separates control from data, and allows routers to create = effectively separates control from data, and = allows routers to create
overlay = networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets = overlay networks. LISP-capable routers = exchange encapsulated packets
according to = EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local = map-cache.
=
skipping to = change at = page 1, line 44 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 1, line 44 =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 = https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at = https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
=
= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six = months Internet-Drafts are draft = documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be = updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any = and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted = by other documents at any
time. It is = inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as = reference
material or to = cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in = progress."
=
This = Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, = 2018. This Internet-Draft will = expire on July 16, 2018.
=
Copyright = Notice Copyright Notice
=
Copyright (c) = 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons = identified as the
document = authors. All rights reserved. = document authors. All rights reserved.
=
This document = is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF = Trust's Legal
Provisions = Relating to IETF Documents = Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
= (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date = of = (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of = this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these = documents
=
skipping to = change at = page 2, line 31 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 2, line 31 =C2=B6
=
1. = Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. = Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 4 2. Requirements Notation . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition = of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 4
4. Basic = Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 = 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Packet = Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 11
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 = 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. LISP = IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 = 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP = IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 = 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel = Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . = . . . . . . 15
6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. = LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Dealing = with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 = 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets = . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A = Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. = A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A = Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.2. = A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using = Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 = 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation = with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing = Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 = 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing = Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 = 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo = Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 = 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 = 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 = 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12. Routing = Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 12. = Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Changing = the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 13. = Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 31
13.1. = Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.1. = Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.2. = Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 = 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14. = Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14. = Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
15. Router = Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 = 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16. Mobility = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 16. = Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.1. Slow = Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.2. Fast = Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 = 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 36
16.3. LISP = Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 = 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 37
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37 17. = LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 38
17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.2. = Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 = 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.3. ISP = Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.3. = ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
17.4. LISP = Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 = 17.4. LISP Functionality with = Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40
17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18. = Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 18. = Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.1. = IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18.1. = IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.2. IPv4 = Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 = 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 42
18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
19. Security = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 = 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 43
20. Network = Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 20. = Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21. IANA = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
21.1. LISP = UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22. References = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 44
22.1. = Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 = 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 44
22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 = Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix B. = Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 = Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 = . . . . . . . . 51
B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 = . . . . . . . . 51
B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 = . . . . . . . . 51
B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 51
B.5. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.5. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 = . . . . . . . . 52
B.6. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.6. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 = . . . . . . . . 52
B.7. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.7. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 = . . . . . . . . 52
B.8. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.8. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 = . . . . . . . . 52
B.9. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52 = B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . = 52
Authors' = Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B.10. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
= Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 53
=
1. = Introduction 1. Introduction
=
This document = describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier = Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP = is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built = around the
fundamental = idea of separating the topological location of a network = fundamental idea of separating the = topological location of a network
attachment = point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. = As a result
LISP creates = two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers = (EIDs), that are
used to = identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and = used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or = Virtual Machines) and
routable = Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify = network
=
skipping to = change at = page 18, line 42 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 18, line = 42 =C2=B6
that the = inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for = that the inner-header source EID address = matches. If the LSB for
an anycast = Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at = least one RLOC
with that = address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. with that address, and the ETR is considered = 'up'.
=
When doing = ITR/PITR encapsulation: When doing = ITR/PITR encapsulation:
=
o The = outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or = 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = inner-header 'Time to
Live' = field. Live' field.
=
o The = outer-header 'Type of Service' field (or = the 'Traffic Class' o The = outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field
field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be
'Type of Service' = field (with one exception; see = below). copied from the = inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, = in
= the case = of IPv6) considering the exception listed = below.
=
= o The 'Explicit = Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits = 6 and 7
= of the IPv6 = 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
= order to avoid = discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
= ITR encapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
= header to the = outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
= 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer
= = header.
=
When doing = ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing = ETR/PETR decapsulation:
=
o The = inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or = 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header 'Time to
Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is = Live' field, when the Time to Live value = of the outer header is
less than = the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to = less than the Time to Live value of the = inner header. Failing to
perform = this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header = perform this check can cause the Time to = Live of the inner header
to = increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This = to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
check is = also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a = check is also performed when doing = initial encapsulation, when a
packet = comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP = site.
=
o The = inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or = the 'Traffic Class' o The = inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field
field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be
'Type of Service' = field (with one exception; see = below). copied from the = outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, = in
= the case of IPv6) = considering the exception listed below.
=
= o The 'Explicit = Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
= of the IPv6 = 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
= order to avoid = discarding indications of congestion = [RFC3168]. If
= the 'ECN' field = contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
= value is '11', = the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
= ETR decapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the
= stripped outer = header to the surviving inner header that is used
= to forward the = packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
= CE indications = when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
= and becomes = marked with a CE indication due to congestion between
= the tunnel = endpoints.
=
Note that if = an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and = chooses to re-
encapsulate = after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = encapsulate after decapsulating, the net = effect of this is that the
new outer = header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = new outer header will carry the same Time to = Live as the old outer
header minus = 1. header minus 1.
=
Copying the = Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: = first, it
preserves the = distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet = to travel;
second, and = more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping = second, and more importantly, it provides = for suppression of looping
packets in the = event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated = tunnels due to
=
skipping to = change at = page 51, line 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 51, line 5 =C2=B6
The LISP = working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari = The LISP working group would like to give a = special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the = Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set = of LISP
documents were = being prepared for IESG last call, and for his documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and = for his
meticulous = reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group = meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries = on the 7 working group
last call = documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. last call documents progressing toward = standards-track RFCs.
=
Appendix B. = Document Change Log Appendix B. = Document Change Log
=
[RFC Editor: = Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on = publication as RFC.]
=
B.1. Changes = to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
=
= o Posted January = 2018.
=
= o Add more details = in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
= encapsulation and = decapsulation.
=
= B.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
=
o Posted = January 2018. o Posted January = 2018.
=
o Remove = references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. = o Remove references to research work for = any protocol mechanisms.
=
o Document = scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 = compliant.
=
o Made = changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi = o Made changes to reflect comments from = document WG shepherd Luigi
= Iannone. Iannone.
=
o Ran IDNITs = on the document. o Ran IDNITs on = the document.
=
B.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
=
o Posted = November 2017. o Posted November = 2017.
=
o Rephrase = how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer = to [RFC1918]
= addresses. addresses.
=
B.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
=
o Posted = October 2017. o Posted October = 2017.
=
o Put RTR = definition before it is used. o = Put RTR definition before it is used.
=
o Rename = references that are now working group drafts. o Rename references that are now working group = drafts.
=
o Remove = "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other = o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by = a host to refer to other
hosts. = Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". = hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
=
=
skipping to = change at = page 51, line 48 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 52, line 7 =C2=B6
o ETRs may, = rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send = Map-Replies.
=
o Recommend, = rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation = headers to 2.
=
o Reference = VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. = o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
=
o Indicate = that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. = o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when = ITR/ETR are in the same node.
=
o Clarify = when private addreses can be used. = o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
=
B.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
=
o Posted = August 2017. o Posted August = 2017.
=
o Make it = clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router = is an RTR.
=
B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
=
o Posted July = 2017. o Posted July 2017.
=
o Changed = reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. = o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
=
o Indicate = that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums = o Indicate that the applicability statement = for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 = adheres to RFC6936. over IPv6 = adheres to RFC6936.
=
B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
=
o Posted May = 2017. o Posted May 2017.
=
o Move the = control-plane related codepoints in the IANA o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the = IANA
= Considerations section to RFC6833bis. = Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
=
B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
=
o Posted = April 2017. o Posted April = 2017.
=
o Reflect = some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien = Sausez.
=
B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
=
o Posted = March 2017. o Posted March = 2017.
=
o Include = references to new RFCs published. o = Include references to new RFCs published.
=
o Change = references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. = o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
=
o Clarified = LCAF text in the IANA section. o = Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
=
o Remove = references to "experimental". o = Remove references to "experimental".
=
B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.10. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
=
o Posted = December 2016. o Posted December = 2016.
=
o Created = working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from = draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 = individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other = changes made.
=
Authors' = Addresses Authors' Addresses
= =
Dino = Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman = Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA = 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA = USA
=
EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com
=
Vince = Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or = deleted 78 lines changed or = added

This = html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available = from http://tools.ietf.org/to= ols/rfcdiff/
=20 =20 = --Apple-Mail=_AD9BA9A4-7E6E-43EF-8C91-A49FDC240FDC-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 01:54:56 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F2212DA12 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:54:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 qTxPqb9DF4qS for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (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 5B90E12DA0C for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id f3so634491wmc.1 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:54:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DNODYKs64Gi7svkvHiPrOqAhYq+2cDzNo+Cd3jP2lpQ=; b=13jr+EnIfLGo3Cse+KWdMZS5pKuuS5kBWW/owS7CisVUQSKfnK7wFAp06Ueuyjhd7c jlBEYDGs1V2Tn5OKX1QeKGSDWeUiYuqIGQXHPV12AkSoFrVbrCHTiTiXdAfJLS1+dV3s MUopLflYThB94r5ENB7EYzqdxAQsci6OM7EzCoRxKUZrgX1LFyWIqoM1L1M3G0hst7MP O8LQQEx4Un0NHe+b+O0TypDNVjR7FLDwHTOQmryXLuSveob4U1RQwV4v72d8jFPS4CuY T/k/ZHH2vsVeiiTT7lx1DlfTB4rYa2Pr0mCS+sb2FEmelvhk/1SdMRbozOZVUmW+NpM5 ZV4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DNODYKs64Gi7svkvHiPrOqAhYq+2cDzNo+Cd3jP2lpQ=; b=MBswQNgUmu0+BmdciZS+VVBRoER04isLsg6fHq06KQ92Ej+nMMBzdeFxXMZv7wx/ef CeyvGbv7OBMekzV6nH2RrY7x6k0Vdf0AiRGT9sJ6CUf/81BzyrbwaLNui5h8RJtAnvQ4 FLnY7CT1DMApqP9XZPc0+BpynJvARd5kNWnpD8stbJsieKSe8JxZAsSPAdYhrMFDQQaQ 0mNahcvgdECDpSNWIvaxvt8+TD68RyvQcz2MGWUU9puoEOyP9cXFa37gdqwMAuN9pTu4 e6N1wtXI3/9HxTapPtUE0TzjVSTNlEPJoc+GSJWmu+cshyuALxUWoW4rdWOpcbv0pQ4B 6chw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfdTJME9FUm6cuFZr7CszjRW1rHmaLhSeaLA3Y808L8O7QR5LlT /8t9amTs4j51ov2AHQEx1UL/3g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227S6QM7O4p1neq2tSV+EAdXpA5i1KPlVocWnAJRP/2GiC3QNHqfdergmd/oN0ocSxox4S2kVw== X-Received: by 10.28.153.147 with SMTP id b141mr1311955wme.47.1516701291603; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:e17e:79fa:b6db:457b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:e17e:79fa:b6db:457b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m6sm3188251wmb.6.2018.01.23.01.54.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:54:50 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:54:49 +0100 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <55E64A73-6152-4FD8-BDBF-D874432E06C8@gigix.net> References: To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Okay to publish this? X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:54:55 -0000 You will have my review today. Please hold on. L. > On 23 Jan 2018, at 04:17, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:21:30 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A1B1205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 5WWdCbpkwqfL for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 A59B01200F1 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 143so1076340wma.5 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=wkljVw9t2+Wpln4E9w21htl2RgjxC2CyXkCm+EIlztU=; b=t9ZqNv8H51jQY9o6J/FwUS0IQi73VR8Onrlv0A0JRyERDDCACRapQROBr1djXOKKNW 7jdTs2hPcjZoF0bqvQ4OjHoSJO74V5/E/lsM7B25kE6phF8ku5Gjrr0uM0hkN0cJr2jV iuc6EfSlupJ3FnVSra069F57um/OEBNmOrZcbyGfFvDIyjfN7pRjZrOMGpERgbXJbVsM Ole6VFcjK27uZA+IMFnule3REtO/jZdddK0h11z/0MC3FyeqMplDFzA1fPHPHljf5eps 7LpTqbUcXuds/MQDUTT7w4QQnEa0G7g+DIREdyYJ+3hrWc7RrY0u/UkJpgwvYOqehmF5 Q5Dg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=wkljVw9t2+Wpln4E9w21htl2RgjxC2CyXkCm+EIlztU=; b=GaqMOgDifR1No4ZYgPHRq8ZAP1PQsvIMS65pP+OVKzy/m3C0IanmRxFxoQ31ebzbJg i34VfqXsSkGHep16dLB2fYNxd6bWt5AKvcumImoPQYkxzgu5gTjJjchs3hMfEGxlao0e fgoZ2G/4AsFnSVR7Y2QPVokCh7vB73y7rlv7gleLcQDq3YCoImR4Lr5Ab0btekg3Jkwm j2IIKMsB1SekfnVfyAnyZbhgGBRDRdSZnc80TNnsDnmwVrZxhuTJbrwyStYnImoc1R5T LUvzudI/3G+QgC+ZgwLSz/8TiRDNrOB3EFLaOjp4I0zx6tcbMEHf/6o40ErmB2sWgC4o UqJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdBOvrefpG8vMHRpG+sxoCpfEo/FYxZ426us0s2EFya1GKzBjn/ POPrq4rRZ5ytzb782oSKcob+LqtwzmY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226fftwA7bjdB0fI5o72fHeoPIawJ0lB7MOIJ1rVWRZ/qYtX/x9F7XACTiCLuAFJeT67ixsnXw== X-Received: by 10.28.126.133 with SMTP id z127mr1699436wmc.64.1516706482991; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:e17e:79fa:b6db:457b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:e17e:79fa:b6db:457b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q13sm215722wrg.3.2018.01.23.03.21.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:21 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Message-Id: <327012BF-6840-4019-A9FE-39279032459D@gigix.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_87057BFB-6DD2-4161-81E7-E3AFEF2E3E39" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:21:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org To: Albert Cabellos References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:21:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_87057BFB-6DD2-4161-81E7-E3AFEF2E3E39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Albert , you find my comments inline. Thanks again for your work. Ciao L. > On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:20, Albert Cabellos = wrote: >=20 > Hi all >=20 > As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following = changes which I believe have support.=20 >=20 > Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes = to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures = the most relevant ones. >=20 > Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes = listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. >=20 > WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: >=20 > ------- >=20 > A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI Agree. >=20 > B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 = respectively.=20 For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as follows: Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address blocks=20= assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the = underlay=20 network, as such they represent the identifiers of the underlay. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to=20 multiple ETR devices at a site. >=20 > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap = operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text = needs to be validated by experts): Agree.=20 >=20 > When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >=20 > o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' = field. >=20 > o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied = from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of = IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >=20 > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of = the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to = avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer = header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the = stripped outer header to the new outer header. >=20 > When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >=20 > o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the = Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check = can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when = doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR = destined for a LISP site. >=20 > o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied = from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of = IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >=20 > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of = the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to = avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field = contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These = requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >=20 > Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to = re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = header minus 1. >=20 > Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, = and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in = the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to = misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for = traceroute packets. >=20 > D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 = stating that the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the = map-cache (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an = OAM document. Agree >=20 > E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D = considering the following changes: >=20 > * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) = and Echo-Nonce > * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 = (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a = response) and RLOC probing Agree >=20 >=20 > F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis Agree >=20 > G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement = Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document Agree I would like to add a _personal_ opinion about the OAM document. Looks like OAM is a good idea but concern has been expressed on whether = adding a document would slow down the progress. I do not think this will happen. OAM is just a cut&paste of existing = text on which no technical comments on the content itself has been made. As such creating OAM is a one hour job and since the content is stable = text that has been reviewed extensively I do not see any issue in = adopting the document right away (ideally in parallel with last call of = 6830bis). After such step we check consistency with 6833bis and we last call both = 6833bis and AOM in parallel. So no additional time. Again, this is my personal view but I believe that is definitively = doable. Ciao >=20 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp --Apple-Mail=_87057BFB-6DD2-4161-81E7-E3AFEF2E3E39 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Albert ,

you find my = comments inline.

Thanks again for your work.

Ciao

L.


On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:20, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all

As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4= d like to confirm or deny the following changes which I believe have = support.

Please note that I have = intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes to help sync all the = participants. I hope that the list below captures the most relevant = ones.

Also note that = I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes listed below, but = that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat.

WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY:

-------

A.- = Remove definitions of PA and PI

Agree.


B.- Change definitions of EID = and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the overlay=E2=80=99 and = =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively. 

For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as = follows:

Routing = Locator (RLOC):   An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
      [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel = Router (ETR).  An RLOC is
      = the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to = one
      or more RLOCs. =  Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address blocks 
     assigned to a site at each point to which = it attaches to the underlay 
    =  network, as such they represent the identifiers of the = underlay.
      Multiple RLOCs can = be assigned to the same ETR device or to 
 =     multiple ETR devices at a site.


C.- = In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation = concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be = validated by experts):

Agree. 


When doing ITR/PITR = encapsulation:

o  The outer-header = 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD = be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field.

o  The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD = be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in = the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.

o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' = (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires = special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion = [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the = inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit = 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.

When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

 o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' = field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from = the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of = the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner = header.  Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live = of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation = cycles.  This check is also performed when doing initial = encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP = site.

o  The inner-header = 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic = Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) = considering the exception listed below.

o =  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 = of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order = to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' = field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the = Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy = the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving = inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR.  = These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN = traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to = congestion between the tunnel endpoints.

Note= that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate = after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header = will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1.

Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two = purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet = to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of = looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due = to misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling = for traceroute packets.

D.- Simplify section = =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating that the data-plane = MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities and = weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document.

Agree


E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRou= ting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D considering the following changes:

*    Keep bullet = point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce
*    Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP = Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 = (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC = probing

Agree



F.- Move = Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis

Agree


G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility = Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), 18 (Traceroute = Consideration) to a new OAM document

Agree



I would like to add a = _personal_ opinion about the OAM document.
Looks like OAM is a = good idea but concern has been expressed on whether adding a document = would slow down the progress.

I do = not think this will happen. OAM is just a cut&paste of existing text = on which no technical comments on the content itself has been = made.
As such creating OAM is a one hour job and since the = content is stable text that has been reviewed extensively I do not see = any issue in adopting the document right away (ideally in parallel with = last call of 6830bis).
After such step we check consistency = with 6833bis and we last call both 6833bis and AOM in = parallel.

So no additional = time.

Again, this is my personal = view but I believe that is definitively doable.

Ciao






 
_______________________________________________
lisp = mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

= --Apple-Mail=_87057BFB-6DD2-4161-81E7-E3AFEF2E3E39-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 03:21:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1802A12025C for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.101 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 bhIqVXewAzIV for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x234.google.com (mail-wr0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::234]) (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 759601200B9 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 100so141776wrb.7 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=Mdxry1vWe75jZlJyzxU0Y9FyoekOXhBrGWmOR9hYnVg=; b=FERP+ns9wiagnaIdHxLka0nFb9hA1MXlB0Kc2y0OryKuWVNJv7EYMZmuBNVw17x0/O Er+nmCJeAU3ng8TY/Q/oTS7Bi7t+JPMUHw1Nv0tjxUET5Z/0ok2XXkvQVE/LJ39p55UB yEW5F/UPr9r5RZ4y5H3dh3YCS1IBqtG8qcbc6kk+Pfp/TqCPEr8bNPO4icv2Ao4MQMDP L5Tykqw18sPuX0Jll9BMxpR53xGkXv1yfpqLjDr1HrM60kO6uMnfvwh4JVvihMEYILMT Da2OvZQ7NXzYlT0MPEvI6I/IRtvClRLz28LYBuJCpEMELrFFdJC+l/bykR9Phxv+218P XiLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=Mdxry1vWe75jZlJyzxU0Y9FyoekOXhBrGWmOR9hYnVg=; b=UEbIf6ECPBcPU+79k5COeQXILS+CtwDFSCcm70KyoN+8YEthxjYj8p+/eRrxZZsWFi tmNO6a4HnuE2AF/dny5/bsLIggoVc41ahtvhYLxzlEmU4Pu+U7MsFDiN2DdlPDcHiymJ jhzglPo/PbLju5/B8nnSb1TcR3dq1nzXQamcNhDTBpB1ACnUINLJYfiIOr78B15AUpOT RsVlXu7RMPIxH9z7DHbxBRPm0MeT5fE1FEmorZvdddB+1Z715AH6czOrbh6bOQGbWN0G MgwzikHu4p96AesmWrhrV1Om8omgkEWO25gkARMMP0rh4LUeNRDLQP4rEZ5K8eZWa+ox kZTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteDgu4uBUlDUmnGm+YMBGl7DXzNQIwzLqy900bJI0gWZvJeucD+ RQr4Gm5Rhl13MPRM5gioxD7X2B2acnU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226g4O/hWzEOjV3Gf5eEVUwdgyaPxgUpSwuk++J5g8vynC9jqNl7Yg0YjpMQ1NghhEebH3vjtQ== X-Received: by 10.223.175.56 with SMTP id z53mr2145392wrc.9.1516706479711; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:e17e:79fa:b6db:457b? ([2001:660:330f:a4:e17e:79fa:b6db:457b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q13sm215722wrg.3.2018.01.23.03.21.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:21:18 -0800 (PST) From: Luigi Iannone Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_51FE3D12-393C-4C91-8721-43E1FAF44168" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:21:17 +0100 Cc: lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org To: "lisp@ietf.org list" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] Review 6830bis -08/-09 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:21:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_51FE3D12-393C-4C91-8721-43E1FAF44168 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi, this is my review of -08 (and -09 since one single change has been = proposed in -09, more inline). The number of comments is not enormous so I expect that they are all = tracked. Thanks Luigi=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Network Working Group D. = Farinacci > Internet-Draft V. = Fuller > Intended status: Standards Track D. = Meyer > Expires: July 13, 2018 D. = Lewis > Cisco = Systems > A. Cabellos = (Ed.) > = UPC/BarcelonaTech > January 9, = 2018 >=20 >=20 > The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) > draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 >=20 > Abstract >=20 > This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point > Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators > (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP > effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to = create > overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated = packets > according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. >=20 > LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to = underlay > routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, > among other features. >=20 > Status of This Memo >=20 > This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the > provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. >=20 > 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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. >=20 > 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." >=20 > This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 2018. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 1] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > Copyright Notice >=20 > Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the > document authors. All rights reserved. >=20 > This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal > Provisions Relating to IETF Documents > (https://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. >=20 > Table of Contents >=20 > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 3 > 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 4 > 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 4 > 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 9 > 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 11 > 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 13 > 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 13 > 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 14 > 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . = 15 > 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 19 > 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . = 20 > 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . = 20 > 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . = 21 > 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . = 22 > 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 23 > 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 24 > 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 27 > 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 28 > 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 29 > 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 29 > 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . = 30 > 13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 31 > 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 32 > 13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 33 > 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 34 > 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 35 > 16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 35 > 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 36 > 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 36 > 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 37 > 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . = 37 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 2] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 38 > 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 39 > 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 39 > 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . = 40 > 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 40 > 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 40 > 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 41 > 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 42 > 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . = 42 > 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 43 > 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 43 > 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 44 > 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 44 > 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 44 > 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 44 > 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 45 > Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 50 > Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 50 > B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . = 51 > B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . = 51 > B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . = 51 > B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . = 51 > B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . = 52 > B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . = 52 > B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . = 52 > B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . = 52 > B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . = 52 > Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 52 >=20 > 1. Introduction >=20 > This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol > (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the > fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a = network > attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result > LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are > used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and > routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network > attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between > the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by > devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network > infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP > encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static > provisioning is required or necessary. >=20 > LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane, > this document specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers > (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 3] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, > called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The = map-cache > is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. >=20 > LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to > underlay routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP > offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among > other features. >=20 > Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the > IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in > October 2006 (see [RFC4984]) >=20 > This document specifies the LISP data-plane encapsulation and other > LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] > specifies the LISP control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can = be > found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for = network > operational management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] > describes the LISP architecture. >=20 > 2. Requirements Notation >=20 > 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]. >=20 > 3. Definition of Terms > Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe = an > address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains = to > the data-plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI > value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified > encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets > following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. >=20 > Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document = to > refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on > multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an > anycast address in each of their own address spaces. >=20 > Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to = indicate > a connection initiation attempt by an EID. =20 [Luigi] As stated for -07. Following sentence not needed here. (it is specified in the operation = part of the document) > The ITR(s) at the LISP > site are the first to get involved in forwarding a packet from = the > source EID. >=20 > Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where > the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 4] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a = decapsulating > ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and > delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in = the > EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet = is > discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database > designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other > cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design > for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on > the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised. >=20 > Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP > packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is > one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and > forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In > general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the > Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site > end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have = to > be limited to a router device. A server host can be the = endpoint > of a LISP tunnel as well. >=20 > EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global > distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC > mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece = of > the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes > "behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own > globally visible IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient > conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for > each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has no > negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be > used. >=20 > EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally > short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and = is > responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC > mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of = EID- > to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and > relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively > static, and much more global in scope. >=20 > EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that = are > allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- > Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. = EID-Prefix > allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC = set > is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block. >=20 > End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that = originates > packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system > supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the = IP >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 5] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing > domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or = router > device, or any network appliance. >=20 > Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] > lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a > host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet > must have the same properties as any other IP address used in = that > manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally > unique. 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. Note that EID blocks = MAY > be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network > topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In > addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local > structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this = structure > is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit > string that represents an EID for one device can represent an = RLOC > for a different device. When used in discussions with other > Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an > "LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer > to an LEID. >=20 > Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a > LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to > destinations outside of the site are candidates for = encapsulation > by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID > and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then > prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in > the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of = the > mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this > destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has > better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the > destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from = site > end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets > toward the Internet on the other side. >=20 > Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for > Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also > regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be = based > on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied > RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's > supplied EID). >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 6] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer > to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- > specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an = ITR > prepends or an ETR strips. >=20 > LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the = functions > of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), > or Proxy-ETR (PETR). >=20 > LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that = are > under a single technical administration. LISP routers that = reside > in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the > edge network from the core network. >=20 > Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the > LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ > down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used = as > a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability > status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator > reachability algorithms described in Section 10. >=20 > Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a > negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an = EID-Prefix > is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set > for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator = count > of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix = from > a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping = database. > There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a > Negative Map-Reply. >=20 > Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an address = block > assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site > connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service > provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block = and > is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into > the underlay network. Traditionally, IP multihoming has been > implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally > visible prefix. >=20 > Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses are an address > block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with > any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular > service provider) and are therefore not topologically = aggregatable > in the routing system. >=20 > Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. = A > PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that > send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 7] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. = A > PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites = that > send packets to destinations at LISP sites. >=20 > Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has > more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling = MAY > be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing > as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header > is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" > header. >=20 > Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR = to > remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP > header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing = this > allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the > overhead of additional tunnel headers. =20 [Luigi] As stated for -07. Following sentence not needed here. (it is specified in the operation = part of the document) Delete from here: > Any references to tunnels > in this specification refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; = they > are never statically configured.=20 to here. > When using multiple mapping > database systems, care must be taken to not create re- > encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. >=20 > Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the > underlying routing system will deliver packets to the = destination. > When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and > returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A > route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent = with > a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and = the > destination of the original message appears as the source of the > returned message. >=20 > Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 > [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is > the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one > or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable > blocks=20 remove =E2=80=9CAgregatable" > that are assigned to a site at each point to which it > attaches to the underlay network; where the topology is defined = by > the connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be > assigned to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a > site. >=20 > Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to = indicate > that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a > destination EID. >=20 > TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider > network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering > purposes. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 8] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider > network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic > Engineering purposes. >=20 > xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of = data > flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to = the > router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with > the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located = at > the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR > functionality at the CE router. >=20 > 4. Basic Overview >=20 > One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way = they > do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and > connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do not change. > In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint > Identifiers (EIDs). >=20 > Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination > addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are > referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). Most routers along a path > between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform = routing/ > forwarding lookups on the destination addresses. For routers = between > the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the > destination host, the destination address is an EID. For the = routers > between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC. >=20 > Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router". A Tunnel Router > prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them > prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in > this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange > between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to = each > packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to- > RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has = the > RLOC as one of its IP addresses. >=20 > Some basic rules governing LISP are: >=20 > o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. They don't = know > that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get > to their intended destinations. In a system where LISP is > deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and = assist > in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be > routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not > change. >=20 > o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 9] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for > further information. [Luigi] As stated for -07 and discussed later: merge the three bullets above so = to simplify the flow. Here is the proposed single-bullet text: o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are = typically=20 IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are supported = by LISP,=20 see [RFC8060] for further information). End-systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and assist in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not change. >=20 > o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See > details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". >=20 > o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably > topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless > Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. >=20 > o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address > either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when > terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), > TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it = MAY > use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID > that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an = RLOC; > an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical = BGP > configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage = where > a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP = sessions > to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to > terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. >=20 > o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered = end-to- > end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They = are > expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to = be > encapsulated for inter-site communication. >=20 > o EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a = manner > that is optimized for administrative convenience and to = facilitate > scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. [Luigi] As stated for -07 the above bullet (even if modified compare to -07) is = about scalability and should be removed. >=20 > o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for > local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). >=20 > An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR > when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential > use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform > Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In = such > a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as = an > additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header > would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic > engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP = traffic > engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists). >=20 > In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible > encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two > LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP > deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where = the >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 10] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity > separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service > provider for Traffic Engineering purposes. >=20 > Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS = topology. > For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange > might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the = source > host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly > connected to the destination host. Another example, perhaps for a > VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the > site's border router at the service provider attachment point. > Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other = Tunnel > Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. >=20 > 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence >=20 > This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow, > including also control-plane information as specified in > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following > conditions: >=20 > o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to > "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site > was not using LISP. >=20 > o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address > (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each > provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. >=20 > o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and > destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be > located anywhere in the LISP site. >=20 > o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the > destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a > default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database > system by using the LISP control-plane protocol documented in > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. >=20 > o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology > using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol. >=20 > Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server > host2.xyz.example.com: >=20 > 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to > host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on > host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 11] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address = of > host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or = IPv6 > packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal > IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR. >=20 > 2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC > of one of the ETRs at the destination site. The specific = method > used to do this is not described in this example. See > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for further information. >=20 > 3. The ITR sends a LISP Map-Request as specified in > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Map-Requests SHOULD be = rate-limited. >=20 > 4. The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the > corresponding ETR. When the Map-Request arrives at one of the > ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a > control message. >=20 > 5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and > matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to- > RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes the = ETR > is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no = match, > the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is > returned to the ITR. >=20 > 6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to > check for format validity), and stores the mapping information > from the packet. This information is stored in the ITR's = EID-to- > RLOC map-cache. Note that the map-cache is an on-demand cache. > An ITR will manage its map-cache in such a way that optimizes = for > its resource constraints. >=20 > 7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to > host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the > ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination > address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent > to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due > to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's > Locator-Set policy. >=20 > 8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination > address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the = validity > of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets = to > the attached destination host. >=20 > 9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse > direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps > the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 12] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP = packet. > Such a cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping and only > contains a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete > information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by = sending > a LISP Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY > also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an = RLOC. >=20 > 5. LISP Encapsulation Details >=20 > Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes > larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to > the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get > fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the = packet > is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is > returned to the source. >=20 > In the case when fragmentation is needed, this specification > RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support for one of the > proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two existing = schemes > are detailed in Section 7. >=20 > Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP > architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner > 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 > is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet > format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the > homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 > combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are = defined > in [RFC8060]. >=20 > 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 13] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 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 > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length = | > / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset = | > | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > OH | Time to Live | Protocol =3D 17 | Header Checksum = | > | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | Source Routing Locator = | > \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > \ | Destination Routing Locator = | > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / | Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 = | > UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum = | > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | > I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits = | > P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length = | > / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset = | > | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum = | > | = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | Source EID = | > \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > \ | Destination EID = | > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 > IHL =3D IP-Header-Length >=20 > 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format >=20 > 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 > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label = | > / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | Payload Length | Next Header=3D17| Hop Limit = | > v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | = | > O + = + > u | = | > t + Source Routing Locator = + > e | = | >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 14] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > r + = + > | = | > H = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > d | = | > r + = + > | = | > ^ + Destination Routing Locator = + > | | = | > \ + = + > \ | = | > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / | Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 = | > UDP = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum = | > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | > I \ = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits = | > P = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label = | > / = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > / | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit = | > v = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | = | > I + = + > n | = | > n + Source EID = + > e | = | > r + = + > | = | > H = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > d | = | > r + = + > | = | > ^ + Destination EID = + > \ | = | > \ + = + > \ | = | > = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 > 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions >=20 > Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the > datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] > [RFC2474]. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs. >=20 > Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by = an > ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 15] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP = (17)" > from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit > 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and > 7.2. >=20 > UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port = when > encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash > algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of = the > inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the = well-known > IANA-assigned port value 4341. >=20 > UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as = zero > by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation > [RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is > received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for > decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the = UDP > checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field. > When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it = MAY > choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform > such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST = be > silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the > verification, or performs the verification successfully, the > packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP > zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including > LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936]. >=20 > UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated > packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus > the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated = packet, > the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 = Payload > Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of > the UDP and LISP headers. >=20 > N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1, > the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header > contain a Nonce. See Section 10.1 for details. Both N- and > V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a > decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as > having a Nonce value present. >=20 > L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When > this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second > 32 bits of the LISP header are in use. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 16] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > x 1 x x 0 x x x > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Locator-Status-Bits | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 > E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be = ignored > and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit = is > set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the > nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP- > encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See > Section 10.1 for details. >=20 > V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set = to > 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 13.3 for more details. > This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this > case as: >=20 > 0 x 0 1 x x x x > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 > I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more = details. > When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is > reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an > Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 = bits > are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format of = the > LISP header would look like this: >=20 > x x x x 1 x x x > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Instance ID | LSBs | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >=20 > R: The R-bit is a Reserved bit for future use. It MUST be set to 0 > on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. >=20 > KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets = are > encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not > encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 17] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is > randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce > generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are > required to generate different nonces when sending to different > destinations. =20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: What is a destination? Should be different RLOCs, for = clarity. > However, the same nonce can be used for a period of > time to the same destination. The nonce is also used when the > E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the = other > side when packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but the > N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously > requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. See > Section 10.1 for more details. >=20 > LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the > 'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR = to > indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the > source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal > value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry). > The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the = least > significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the = I-bit > is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a > Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR > that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. = See > Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of > the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple = EID-Prefixes > that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a > different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an > encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix > that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB = for > an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC > with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. >=20 [Luigi] The following part is the ECN part and as afar as I cans is the only = change proposed in -09 (09 includes the text proposed by Albert) > When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >=20 > o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in > the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time = to > Live' field. >=20 > o The outer-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class' > field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = inner-header > 'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below). >=20 > When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >=20 > o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in > the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time = to > Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is > less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing = to > perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner = header >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 18] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This > check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a > packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. >=20 > o The inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class' > field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header > 'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below). >=20 > Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- > encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the > new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer > header minus 1. >=20 > Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it > preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; > second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of = looping > packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to > misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for > traceroute packets. >=20 > The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 > and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 = 'Traffic > Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment > in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. = An > ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the = inner > header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit > 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. > If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the > value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then = ETR/ > PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the = stripped > outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward > the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE > indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and > becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the > tunnel endpoints. >=20 > 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache >=20 > ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP = EID-to- > RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator > sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space = to > the corresponding RLOC network attachment point. >=20 > When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to > destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of = the > EID is done to the map-cache. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 19] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the map- > cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location. >=20 > If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping = using > the LISP control-plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The > mapping is then stored in the local map-cache to forward subsequent > packets addressed to the same EID-prefix. >=20 > The map-cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired = based > on the associated Time to live. In addition, entries can be = updated > with more current information, see Section 13 for further = information > on this. Finally, the map-cache also contains reachability > information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability > information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see > Section 10 for the specific mechanisms. >=20 > 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets >=20 > This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that = exceed > the path MTU between the ITR and ETR. >=20 > It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or = stateful > mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, = since > it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU > issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. >=20 > Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to = Re-encapsulating > and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR > also apply to a TE-ITR. >=20 > 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling >=20 > An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as > follows: >=20 > 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR > prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header > lengths. >=20 > 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet > an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any > intermediate routers to fragment the packet. >=20 > 3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a > packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the > effective MTU can be met. That is, L =3D S + H. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 20] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds = H > octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L > octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets > from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the > original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is = then > prepended to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments > is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the = path > MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. >=20 > When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two > individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and > then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the > destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the > destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by > the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the > encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR. >=20 > This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host = originates > a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the > 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6 > packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet > when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/ > Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where = S > is (L - H). >=20 > When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an > implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment = reassembly > can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such = headers > to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path = MTU > issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. >=20 > This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. >=20 > 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling >=20 > An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as = follows > and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]: >=20 > 1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator = per > Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network = can > deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR. >=20 > 2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated = packet > with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can > deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send = an > ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message to the ITR. The > ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 21] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new > effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry. >=20 > 3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of = the > site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective = MTU > stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination > EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Unreachable/ > Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source. The packet = size > advertised by the ITR in the ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation- > Needed message is the effective MTU minus the LISP = encapsulation > length. >=20 > Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the > stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the > destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. >=20 > 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP >=20 > There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID = level. > For instance, this is the case for deployments containing = overlapping > addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant = virtualization. > For these and other scenarios where segregation is needed, Instance > IDs are used. >=20 > An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An = ITR > that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the = LISP > router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied > to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set > to 1. >=20 > When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP > header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table > to use for the inner destination EID lookup. >=20 > For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as = a > 24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case > details. >=20 > The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when = LISP-DDT > [RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That means the = control-plane > can store more instances than a given data-plane can use. Multiple > data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as the low-order = 24 > bits don't overlap among xTRs. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 22] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 9. Routing Locator Selection=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as such = should be put in 6833bis. What this section should state is that priority and weight are used to = select the RLOC to use. Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do not = know neither priority nor weight. All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in this = document. > Both the client-side and server-side MAY need control over the > selection of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is > achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID- > to-RLOC Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be > gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request > messages. >=20 > The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the > controls that are available: >=20 > o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use > one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the = selection. >=20 > o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the = list > has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset > list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In > this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and = load- > splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs > outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list > is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). = Some > sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the > destination RLOC list and load distribution while the = client-side > has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in = the > list are unreachable. >=20 > o The server-side sets a Weight of 0 for the RLOC subset list. In > this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is > spread across the subset list. Control is shared by the server- > side determining the list and the client determining load > distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if = the > server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable. >=20 > o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to = send > a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not = send > Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving = the > client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC = reachability > and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side > ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the > outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side = ITR > controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an = outer- > header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the > server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or > Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST > assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best = Priority > with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 23] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on > Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. >=20 > o A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of = a > received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few > seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by > sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP > source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to > this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map- > Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the > time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. = When > a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer > occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that = matches > the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism > is OPTIONAL. >=20 > RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to = be > reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1. When > the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the > RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that > stored in the mapping database system provides reachability > information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the > mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing > Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section. >=20 > 10. Routing Locator Reachability >=20 > Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently > defined: [Luigi] As stated for -07: There exists data-plane based reachability mechanisms and control plane = reachability mechanisms. We have to keep here only the data plane based mechanism and move the = other in 6833bis. We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce,=20 We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing >=20 > 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header = of > an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR = is > also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original > ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an > RLOC. >=20 > 2. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host > Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates = that > the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may > not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. > Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices > in treating these conditions. >=20 > 3. An ITR that participates in the global routing system can > determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information = Base > (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 24] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 4. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a > destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use > interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a > non-LISP-capable site. >=20 > 5. An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a > previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply = is > likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the > ITR. >=20 > 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the > source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. >=20 > 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms > described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing. >=20 > When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the > Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR > will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about > reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source > site can determine reachability relative to each other using the = site > IGP as follows: >=20 > o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default > route into the site IGP. >=20 > o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its > default route will either time out or be withdrawn. >=20 > Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route > originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it = sets > for them. >=20 > RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. = The > Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from = 0 > to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an > RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal > value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least > significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for > the packets they encapsulate. >=20 > When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in > the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the > ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating > packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume > using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to = a > value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set > per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 25] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in = the > list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that > particular EID-Prefix. Refer to Section 19 for security related > issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits. >=20 > When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can > still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided > they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 > address is configured on a loopback interface. >=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. > When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable > messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain > from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map- > Replies. However, using this approach is unreliable because many > network operators turn off generation of ICMP Destination = Unreachable > messages. >=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. > If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host > Unreachable message, it MAY originate its own ICMP Destination > Unreachable message destined for the host that originated the data > packet the ITR encapsulated. >=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. > Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the RIB to see if a > locator address from a Locator-Set in a mapping entry matches a > prefix. If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default- > Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the Locator even though = the > Locator-Status-Bits indicate that the Locator is up. In this case, > the path from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the Locator is = not > available. More details are in [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]. >=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. > Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator, and if a = Map- > Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined. > Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control > messages originated by Tunnel Routers for active flows, so Locators > are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised. >=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. > This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is > detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When a > Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for > active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a = Map-Reply > with Priority 255. >=20 [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. > The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by > sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate- > limited. Locator reachability testing is never done with data > packets, since that increases the risk of packet loss for = end-to-end > sessions. [Luigi] As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 26] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable = from > the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In > most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this = to > be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence > of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR = SHOULD > NOT use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is > unreachable. Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to > determine reachability. >=20 > 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm >=20 > When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different > sites, a data-plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to > determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants = to > solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit > nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data > packet. >=20 > When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is > forwarded as normal. When the ETR next sends a data packet to the > ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set and > E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the > path to and from the ETR is up. >=20 > The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends = while > in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process > the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is > variable and is a choice left for the implementation. >=20 > If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the > nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the > path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision MAY be overridden by > other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines = that > the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for > that EID-Prefix. >=20 > Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices = MUST > be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce > mechanism to operate. >=20 > The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the echo-nonce-request state at = the > same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which = echo > nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting. > However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can = echo > the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and > subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 27] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path > reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, = the > ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an = ITR > that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic = is > unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. >=20 > The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets = the > E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the > echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may > erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only = set > the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is > enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the = RLOC- > probe Map-Reply message. >=20 > Note other Locator Reachability mechanisms can be used to = compliment > or even override the echo nonce algorithm. See the next section = for > an example of control-plane probing. >=20 > 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm [Luigi] As stated for -07: This whole section has to go to 6833bis.. The fact that (P)ITRs use this mechanism does make it a data-plane = mechanism. is the LISP control plane running on (P)ITRs that does it, = using control plane messages. >=20 > RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine = the > reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a > Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply > messages is used for RLOC-Probing. >=20 > RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where = an > ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator > address from one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used = as > an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or = to > the mapping database system as one would when soliciting mapping > data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix = of > the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR MAY include = a > mapping data record for its own database mapping information that > contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. = RLOC-probes > are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval. >=20 > When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, = it > returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of > the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping > data for the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. This = provides > the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get > mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping > entries. >=20 > There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC-Probing. The = greatest > benefit of RLOC-Probing is that it can handle many failure = scenarios > allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific Locator = is >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 28] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust > mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached > Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT) > estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for = network > management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The > major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control > messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those > benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times > is very small. >=20 > 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site >=20 > A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and > infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more = EID- > Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the > mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose > reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own = site. > When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the > R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an > ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data > header. >=20 > It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site > partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the > EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any = sub- > ranges of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem > introduced by the LISP architecture. The problem exists today when = a > multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its reachability upstream. >=20 > 12. Routing Locator Hashing >=20 > When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message > that is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR, the = Locator-Set > for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values > for each locator address. When more than one best Priority Locator > exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against the > corresponding Locators. >=20 > The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a > Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC = mapping: >=20 > 1. Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional > 5-tuple hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash = includes > the source and destination addresses; source and destination = TCP, > UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port = numbers; > and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields = of > a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site. When = a > packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 29] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > destination addresses only from the header are used to compute > the hash. >=20 > 2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators > stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping. >=20 > 3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators > minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the > Locator-Set. >=20 > Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port = number > in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value > allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups > (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links = of > such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since > packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are > originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested = setting > for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash > function on the inner header, as described above. >=20 > Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how = to > balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash > includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the > source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet > is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP > encapsulation. >=20 > 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings [Luigi] As stated for -07: This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in 6833bis, with two = exception: The very first paragraph stetting the problem, and the versioning = subsection, because it is a data-plane mechanism. >=20 > Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and > store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more = up-to- > date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do = not > know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of > which ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, it is > desirable to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for > ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are = currently > communicating with the ETR site using such mappings. >=20 > When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end = of > a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings. We assume that new > mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping > but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list. = So, > some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old > mapping that is used until they time out. When an ITR has only an > old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that > correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply > ignores them. However, this can only happen for locator addresses >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 30] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in = the > existing Locator-Set. >=20 > When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, = to > maintain lexicographic order, the SMR procedure in Section 13.2 is > used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the new Locator-Status-Bit = mappings. >=20 > When a Locator record is removed from a Locator-Set, ITRs that have > the mapping cached will not use the removed Locator because the = xTRs > will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0. So, even if the Locator is = in > the list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs > can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), = as > well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This > forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed > Locator. >=20 > If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one > will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and = new > records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be > useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit = settings > can be efficiently packed. >=20 > We propose here three approaches for Locator-Set compaction: one > operational mechanism and two protocol mechanisms. The operational > approach uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approaches use = the > concept of Solicit-Map-Requests and Map-Versioning. >=20 > 13.1. Clock Sweep >=20 > The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of > count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached. > The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours. = So, > there is a 24-hour window to time out old mappings. The following > clock sweep procedure is used: >=20 > 1. 24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network > administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock > sweep window. >=20 > 2. During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply > messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records. The TTL > for these mappings is set to 1 hour. >=20 > 3. 24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out, > and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour. = During > this 1-hour window, the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply = messages > with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set = to > 1 minute. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 31] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 4. At the end of the 1-hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply > messages with the new (changed) mapping records. So, any = active > caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not = cached, > or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached. The new = mappings > are cached with a TTL equal to the TTL in the Map-Reply. >=20 > 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) >=20 > Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site > where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests = for > Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to = update > the mappings they have cached. >=20 > Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached = their > mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their mappings > updated. As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests (called an > SMR message) from those sites to which it has been sending > encapsulated data for the last minute. In particular, an ETR will > send an SMR to an ITR to which it has recently sent encapsulated > data. This can only occur when both ITR and ETR functionality = reside > in the same router. >=20 > An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message. An = ITR > or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message. > Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder MUST rate-limit > these messages. Rate-limiting can be implemented as a global rate- > limiter or one rate-limiter per SMR destination. >=20 > The following procedure shows how an SMR exchange occurs when a = site > is doing Locator-Set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping: >=20 > 1. When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ETRs at the = site > begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each = Locator > in each Map-Cache entry the ETR caches. >=20 > 2. A remote ITR that receives the SMR message will schedule = sending > a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR > message or to the mapping database system. A newly allocated > random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one > copied from the SMR message. If the source Locator is the only > Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a > Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the > single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to > accept the Map-Request. >=20 > 3. The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a > Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. When > Map-Versioning as described in Section 13.3 is used, an SMR >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 32] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date = database > mapping. >=20 > 4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the > Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the > SMR-invoked Map-Request. The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be = rate- > limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion. >=20 > 5. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record the fact > that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new > mapping data in the Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the > Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for = packets > going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending SMR > messages. >=20 > For security reasons, an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map- > Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a > sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR > receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the > Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding = Map- > Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping = database > system. Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to > reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the > authoritative source of the mapping data. >=20 > When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not > have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not = send > an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR > sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored > in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not = be > sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the = ITRs > until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests = to > obtain a Map-Cache entry. >=20 > 13.3. Database Map-Versioning >=20 > When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, = and > the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the > ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead = be > started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set. >=20 > An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own = Map-Version > Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs > include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they > encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and > detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the > current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in > Section 13.2 occurs. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 33] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own = Map- > Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number. > When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map- > Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in = a > Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to = one > of the ETRs for the source site. >=20 > A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, = so > values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value = of > 0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version > Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no > comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers. >=20 > A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as > well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all = ETRs > for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map- > Version Number. >=20 > See [RFC6834] for a more detailed analysis and description of > Database Map-Versioning. >=20 > 14. Multicast Considerations >=20 > A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet > architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically > independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself > does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast > routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates, > determine where the receivers are located. >=20 > In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID = and > a Routing Locator. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs > to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP > header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP > header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID. > The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address), > prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the > destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing > Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means = to > determine the group address mapping. >=20 > With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR = prepends > its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header. > Just like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address. > This source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator > address, MUST be globally routable. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 34] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native > multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping > System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay > with support from the Mapping System. See [RFC6831] and > [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast], respectively, for details. > Details for LISP-Multicast and interworking with non-LISP sites are > described in [RFC6831] and [RFC6832]. >=20 > 15. Router Performance Considerations >=20 > LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". = A > few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally = implement > LISP: >=20 > o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the = outer > destination address may not be the address of the router. This > makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from = the > hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding > Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs = served > by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC > translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag = indicating > that control-plane processing SHOULD be performed. The = forwarding > logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not > necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to > existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data- > plane. >=20 > o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more > octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part > of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support > Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 > tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action. >=20 > o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received = on > can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The = VRF's > routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings. >=20 > For performance issues related to map-cache management, see > Section 19. >=20 > 16. Mobility Considerations [Luigi] As stated for -07: Move it out. Mobility is equivalent to mapping change, it is a CP issue. move it in an OAM document. >=20 > There are several kinds of mobility, of which only some might be of > concern to LISP. Essentially, they are as follows. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 35] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 16.1. Slow Mobility >=20 > A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and > its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes = upstream > providers. Changes in EID-to-RLOC mappings for sites are expected = to > be handled by configuration, outside of LISP. >=20 > An individual endpoint wishes to move but is not concerned about > maintaining session continuity. Renumbering is involved. LISP can > help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by > decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces > used by its ISPs [RFC4984]. >=20 > 16.2. Fast Mobility >=20 > Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively > rapidly, changing its IP-layer network attachment point. = Maintenance > of session continuity is a goal. This is where the Mobile IPv4 > [RFC5944] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used = and > primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored, such as > the mechanisms in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] when the EID moves = but > the RLOC is in the network infrastructure. >=20 > In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information. When a packet > arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-to-RLOC mapping and use that > mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID. It can do this after > performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new > network location does have an internal route to that endpoint. > However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node = assigned > the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised. >=20 > Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which = all > routing information is disseminated before packets can be = forwarded. > In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future > use, we are moving to an environment where some information may = have > to be obtained after packets are in flight. Modifications to IP > mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of > the overall system. Anything that decreases the number of new EID- > to-RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the = validity > of an EID-to-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful. >=20 > In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly = changing > xTRs. A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large = as > a whole site. This is different from site mobility in that it is > fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility > in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs. However, the mechanisms > are the same, and there is no new overhead in LISP. A map request > for any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile = prefix. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 36] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be = useful > to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic > updates of the database. >=20 > The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be > explored further. Specific improvements to the entire system will > depend on the details of mapping mechanisms. Mapping mechanisms > should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for > mobile nodes. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] for more recent > mechanisms which can provide near-zero packet loss during handoffs. >=20 > 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility >=20 > A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility > by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions > and acting as a simple ITR/ETR. By doing this, such a "LISP mobile > node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are = not > advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing > system. These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping = system > in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand = to > only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node. >=20 > Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and > RLOC are co-located in the roaming node. >=20 > 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods Luigi] As stated for -07: This ia an OAM issue and has to be moved out of the document. >=20 > This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed > in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario. > For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, = refer > to [RFC7215]. >=20 > There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized > versus distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating > Tunneling. When deciding on centralized versus distributed = caching, > the following issues SHOULD be considered: >=20 > o Are the xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all > the memories of each router? A centralized cache is when an ITR > keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. The = packet > takes a direct path to the destination Locator. A distributed > cache is when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating = Tunnel > Routers (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries = for > the EIDs it is encapsulating to. So, the packet takes a path > through RTRs that have a different set of cache entries. >=20 > o Should management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a > few xTRs, just enough for redundancy? >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 37] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load, > since caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other = hand, > using more ETRs does require more management, since = EID-Prefix-to- > RLOC mappings need to be explicitly configured. >=20 > When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, = the > following issues SHOULD be considered: >=20 > o Flat tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between = the > source site and destination site. This generally offers better > paths between sources and destinations with a single = encapsulation > path. >=20 > o Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again = further > encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to > perform Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, = the > site has some control, since the site is prepending a new > encapsulation header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the = site > MAY have control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if > the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. > Recursive Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths = but > with the benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network = that > have more resources available. >=20 > o The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only > require one encapsulation header. So, if a packet needs to be = re- > routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re- > Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC. >=20 > The next sub-sections will examine where xTRs and RTRs can reside = in > the network. >=20 > 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs >=20 > By locating xTRs close to hosts, the EID-Prefix set is at the > granularity of an IP subnet. So, at the expense of more = EID-Prefix- > to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each xTR can remain > relatively small. But caches always depend on the number of non- > aggregated EID destination flows active through these xTRs. >=20 > With more xTRs doing encapsulation, the increase in control traffic > grows as well: since the EID granularity is greater, more Map- > Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers. >=20 > The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub > routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network > have better price-memory ratios than their core router = counterparts. > Memory is typically less expensive in these devices, and fewer = routes >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 38] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > are stored (only IGP routes). These devices tend to have excess > capacity, both for forwarding and routing states. >=20 > LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches. These > devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports > facing the Internet. Spare capacity is also often available in = these > devices. >=20 > 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs >=20 > Using Customer Edge (CE) routers for xTR placement allows the EID > space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of = RLOCs > assigned to the CE-based xTRs for that site. >=20 > This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop xTR > scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management = touch > points is reduced, allowing better scaling. >=20 > One disadvantage is that fewer network resources are used to reach > host endpoints, thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain = and > creating network choke points at the CE xTR. >=20 > Note that more than one CE xTR at a site can be configured with the > same IP address. In this case, an RLOC is an anycast address. = This > allows resilience between the CE xTRs. That is, if a CE xTR fails, > traffic is automatically routed to the other xTRs using the same > anycast address. However, this comes with the disadvantage where = the > site cannot control the entrance point when the anycast route is > advertised out from all border routers. Another disadvantage of > using anycast Locators is the limited advertisement scope of /32 = (or > /128 for IPv6) routes. >=20 > 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs >=20 > The use of ISP PE routers as xTRs is not the typical deployment > scenario envisioned in this specification. This section attempts = to > capture some of the reasoning behind this preference for = implementing > LISP on CE routers. >=20 > The use of ISP PE routers for xTR placement gives an ISP, rather = than > a site, control over the location of the ETRs. That is, the ISP = can > decide whether the xTRs are in the destination site (in either CE > xTRs or last-hop xTRs within a site) or at other PE edges. The > advantage of this case is that two encapsulation headers can be > avoided. By having the PE be the first router on the path to > encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can > decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the > destination end site. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 39] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over > where its packets flow or over the RLOCs used. Other disadvantages > include difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between = CE > and PE routers. >=20 > As mentioned in earlier sections, a combination of these scenarios = is > possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead; if both = site > and provider want control, then Recursive or Re-Encapsulating = Tunnels > are used. >=20 > 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs >=20 > LISP routers can be deployed behind Network Address Translator = (NAT) > devices to provide the same set of packet services hosts have today > when they are addressed out of private address space. >=20 > It is important to note that a locator address in any LISP control > message MUST be a routable address and therefore [RFC1918] = addresses > SHOULD only be presence when running in a local environment. When = a > LISP xTR is configured with private RLOC addresses and resides = behind > a NAT device and desires to communicate on the Internet, the = private > addresses MUST be used only in the outer IP header so the NAT = device > can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST be = translated > before encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs are not in use. > Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co- > located in the same device. >=20 > 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site >=20 > When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of = one > ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second > ITR's cache MAY not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping > entries as the first. If this second ITR does not have these > mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved > from the mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may > increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system. >=20 > 18. Traceroute Considerations [Luigi] As stated for -07: I consider traceroute again an OAM issue. >=20 > When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a > destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for = it > to see the entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from the = ITR > to the ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single > hop. However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the > user can see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP = host > to a destination LISP host: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 40] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs): >=20 > source host ---> first hop ... next hop ---> ITR >=20 > Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs): >=20 > ITR ---> next hop ... next hop ---> ETR >=20 > Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs): >=20 > ETR ---> next hop ... last hop ---> destination host >=20 > For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned > in the normal manner as they are today. The ITR performs a TTL > decrement and tests for 0 before encapsulating. Therefore, the = ITR's > hop is seen by the traceroute source as having an EID address (the > address of the site-facing interface). >=20 > For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned > to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer > header, so the destinations of the ICMP messages are the ITR RLOC > address and the source RLOC address of the encapsulated traceroute > packet. The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to inspect the > traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to the address = of > the traceroute client and also retain the core router IP address in > the ICMP message. This is so the traceroute client can display the > core router address (the RLOC address) in the traceroute output. = The > ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to the TTL decrement to = 0, > as the previous core routers did. >=20 > For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be > decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent = into > the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't = the > final destination. If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on = the > path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop > router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to = the > source EID of the traceroute client. The ICMP message will be > encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the > originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be = delivered > to the host. >=20 > 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute >=20 > IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above, since the > entire traceroute data packet is included in the ICMP Time Exceeded > message payload. Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special > attention to forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute = source. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 41] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute >=20 > For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure, since = IPv4 > ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and > 8 octets that follow the IP header. Therefore, when a core router > sends an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in = the > ICMP payload is the encapsulated header it prepended, followed by a > UDP header. The original invoking IP header, and therefore the > identity of the traceroute source, is lost. >=20 > The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache = traceroute > IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding = IPv4 > Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR. The > ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers > of traceroute packets. It will select a 16-bit number as a key to > find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received. > When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the > 16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header. > When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP > header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload, > thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the > traceroute source. The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload > and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source > retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded > message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute > destination). >=20 > The signature of a traceroute packet comes in two forms. The first > form is encoded as a UDP message where the destination port is > inspected for a range of values. The second form is encoded as an > ICMP message where the IP identification field is inspected for a > well-known value. >=20 > 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators >=20 > When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and > the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, one > cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute. Segment 2 of the > traceroute cannot be conveyed to the traceroute source, since it is > expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address = format > for the type of traceroute it originated. Therefore, in this case, > segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has = to > do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer, > encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated > using an RLOC from a different address family. This will cause no > TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and = ETR. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 42] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 19. Security Considerations >=20 > Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833], in > addition [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication and integrity = to > LISP mappings. [Luigi] As stated for -07: lisp-sec is control-plane has to be referenced in 6833bis. authentication and integrity of mappings is a control plane issue. >=20 > A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what > follows we provide a summary. >=20 > The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a > mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR = can > learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and > source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping > into its map-cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID > address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If > the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by > redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially > overloading it. >=20 > The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC = data- > plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce- > Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be > manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path > attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate = such > mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable. This can be used > also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim > of overload it. >=20 > Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering = xTR > that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the > peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a > fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map- > versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an = excessive > amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them. >=20 > Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment > and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as = LSB > or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms. > In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an = effective > technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the = control-plane. >=20 > 20. Network Management Considerations >=20 > Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP > protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can = be > found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 43] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > 21. IANA Considerations >=20 > This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this > data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. >=20 > 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers >=20 > The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for > lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively. IANA has = updated > the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: >=20 > lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets > lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets [Luigi] As stated for -07: 4342 is control-plane and MUST be requested to IANA in the 6833bis = document. >=20 > 22. References >=20 > 22.1. Normative References >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] > Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, > "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", > draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), = December > 2017. >=20 > [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, > DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, > . >=20 > [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, > DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, > . >=20 > [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, > . >=20 > [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate > Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, > DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, > . >=20 > [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, > "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS > Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, > DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, > . >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 44] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition > of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", > RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, > . >=20 > [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, > "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC = 4086, > DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, > . >=20 > [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing > (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation > Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August > 2006, . >=20 > [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, = Revised", > RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, > . >=20 > [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility > Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July > 2011, . >=20 > [RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A > RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier > Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security > Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833, > DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016, > . >=20 > [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for > Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, > RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, > . >=20 > [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 > (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, > DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, > . >=20 > 22.2. Informative References >=20 > [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, > = . >=20 > [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", > 1999, > . >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 45] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01 > (work in progress), November 2017. >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] > Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural > Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol > (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in > progress), April 2015. >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] > Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP > Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress), > October 2017. >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] > Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive > RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in > progress), November 2017. >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] > Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. > Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", = draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 > (work in progress), October 2017. >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] > Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP = Multicast", > draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work in > progress), November 2017. >=20 > [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] > Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private > Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work in > progress), November 2017. >=20 > [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] > Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of > Locator/ID Separation", = draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 > (work in progress), January 2009. >=20 > [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin, > "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System > Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 46] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > [OPENLISP] > Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP > Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008. >=20 > [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and = facilities", > STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, > . >=20 > [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. > Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, > DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, > . >=20 > [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains > via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, = February > 2001, . >=20 > [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is = Replaced > by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, > January 2002, . >=20 > [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, > A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. > Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, > DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, > . >=20 > [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for > Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC = 4192, > DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005, > . >=20 > [RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route > Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, > DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007, > . >=20 > [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., = "Report > from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", > RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, > . >=20 > [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, = "The > Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast > Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January > 2013, . >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 47] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, > "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol > (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, > DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, > . >=20 > [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, > DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, > . >=20 > [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation > Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, > DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013, > . >=20 > [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and > UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, > DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, > . >=20 > [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability = Statement > for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", > RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, > . >=20 > [RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052, > DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013, > . >=20 > [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- > Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier = Separation > Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment > Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April > 2014, . >=20 > [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID > Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, > DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, > . >=20 > [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP = Canonical > Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, > February 2017, = . >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 48] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation = Protocol > (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, > DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, > . >=20 > [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. > Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated > Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI = 10.17487/RFC8111, > May 2017, . >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 49] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > Appendix A. Acknowledgments >=20 > An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for = the > initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide = value > to the LISP authors. >=20 > A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for > providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation > of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP > architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP = a > practical and incremental transition for the Internet. >=20 > The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who = have > contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal. > They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason = Schiller, > Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff = Huston, > David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley, > Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler, > Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi > Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry > Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van > Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, = Damien > Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David > Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred = Templin, > Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, = Jari > Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu, > Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri > Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina > Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence = Filsfils, > Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. >=20 > This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the = IRTF. > An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working > group document that became this RFC. >=20 > 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 > documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his > meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group > last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. >=20 > Appendix B. Document Change Log >=20 > [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 50] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 >=20 > o Posted January 2018. >=20 > o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. >=20 > o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. >=20 > o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi > Iannone. >=20 > o Ran IDNITs on the document. >=20 > B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 >=20 > o Posted November 2017. >=20 > o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] > addresses. >=20 > B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 >=20 > o Posted October 2017. >=20 > o Put RTR definition before it is used. >=20 > o Rename references that are now working group drafts. >=20 > o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to = other > hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". >=20 > o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. >=20 > o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. >=20 > o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. >=20 > o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. >=20 > o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same = node. >=20 > o Clarify when private addreses can be used. >=20 > B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 >=20 > o Posted August 2017. >=20 > o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 51] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 >=20 > o Posted July 2017. >=20 > o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. >=20 > o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums > over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. >=20 > B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 >=20 > o Posted May 2017. >=20 > o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA > Considerations section to RFC6833bis. >=20 > B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 >=20 > o Posted April 2017. >=20 > o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. >=20 > B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 >=20 > o Posted March 2017. >=20 > o Include references to new RFCs published. >=20 > o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. >=20 > o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. >=20 > o Remove references to "experimental". >=20 > B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 >=20 > o Posted December 2016. >=20 > o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp > -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. >=20 > Authors' Addresses >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 52] > =0C > Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >=20 >=20 > Dino Farinacci > Cisco Systems > Tasman Drive > San Jose, CA 95134 > USA >=20 > EMail: farinacci@gmail.com >=20 >=20 > Vince Fuller > Cisco Systems > Tasman Drive > San Jose, CA 95134 > USA >=20 > EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com >=20 >=20 > Dave Meyer > Cisco Systems > 170 Tasman Drive > San Jose, CA > USA >=20 > EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net >=20 >=20 > Darrel Lewis > Cisco Systems > 170 Tasman Drive > San Jose, CA > USA >=20 > EMail: darlewis@cisco.com >=20 >=20 > Albert Cabellos > UPC/BarcelonaTech > Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3 > Barcelona, Catalunya > Spain >=20 > EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 53] --Apple-Mail=_51FE3D12-393C-4C91-8721-43E1FAF44168 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Hi,

this is my review of -08 = (and -09 since one single change has been proposed in -09, more = inline).

The = number of comments is not enormous so I expect that they are all = tracked.

Thanks

Luigi 

 




Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                                 V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track                                D. Meyer
Expires: July 13, 2018                                          D. Lewis
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       A. Cabellos (Ed.)
                                                       UPC/BarcelonaTech
                                                         January 9, 2018


               The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
                     draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08

Abstract

   This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
   Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
   (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
   effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.

   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
   routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
   among other features.

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 https://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 July 13, 2018.








Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 1]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Basic Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Packet Flow Sequence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  LISP Encapsulation Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.1.  LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.2.  LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.3.  Tunnel Header Field Descriptions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   7.  Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling  . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   10. Routing Locator Reachability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     10.1.  Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.2.  RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . .  30
     13.1.  Clock Sweep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     13.2.  Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     13.3.  Database Map-Versioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   14. Multicast Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     16.1.  Slow Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     16.2.  Fast Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     16.3.  LISP Mobile Node Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods  . . . . . . . .  37



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 2]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


     17.1.  First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     17.2.  Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     17.3.  ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     17.4.  LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs  . . . . . . .  40
     17.5.  Packets Egressing a LISP Site  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     18.1.  IPv6 Traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     18.2.  IPv4 Traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     18.3.  Traceroute Using Mixed Locators  . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     21.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   22. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     22.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     22.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08  . . . . . . . .  51
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07  . . . . . . . .  51
     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06  . . . . . . . .  51
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05  . . . . . . . .  51
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00  . . . . . . . .  52
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
   (LISP).  LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
   fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
   attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA].  As a result
   LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
   used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
   routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
   attachment points.  LISP then defines functions for mapping between
   the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by
   devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network
   infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs.  LISP
   encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static
   provisioning is required or necessary.

   LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane,
   this document specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers
   (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 3]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   appropriate location.  Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache,
   called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings.  The map-cache
   is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to
   underlay routers.  By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP
   offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among
   other features.

   Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
   IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
   October 2006 (see [RFC4984])

   This document specifies the LISP data-plane encapsulation and other
   LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
   specifies the LISP control plane.  LISP deployment guidelines can be
   found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network
   operational management.  Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
   describes the LISP architecture.

2.  Requirements Notation

   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].

3.  Definition of Terms
   Address Family Identifier (AFI):   =
AFI is a term used to describe an
      address encoding in =
a packet.  An address family that pertains to
      the data-plane.  See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details.  An AFI
      value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified
      encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets
      following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.

   Anycast Address:  Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
      refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
      multiple systems at the same time.  An EID or RLOC can be an
      anycast address in each of their own address spaces.

   Client-side:  Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
      a connection initiation attempt by an EID.  =
[Luigi]
As stated for = -07.
Following sentence not needed here. (it is = specified in the operation part of the document)
The ITR(s) at the LISP
      site are the first to get involved in forwarding a packet from the
      source EID.

   Data-Probe:   A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
      the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 4]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


      destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating
      ETR.  In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and
      delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the
      EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR.  Otherwise, the packet is
      discarded.  A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database
      designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other
      cases, Map-Requests are used.  See each mapping database design
      for details.  When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
      the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.

   Egress Tunnel Router (ETR):   An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
      packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
      one of its own RLOCs.  The router strips the "outer" header and
      forwards the packet based on the next IP header found.  In
      general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
      Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
      end-systems on the other side.  ETR functionality does not have to
      be limited to a router device.  A server host can be the endpoint
      of a LISP tunnel as well.

   EID-to-RLOC Database:   The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global
      distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
      mappings.  Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of
      the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes
      "behind" the router.  These map to one of the router's own
      globally visible IP addresses.  Note that there MAY be transient
      conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for
      each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs.  This has no
      negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be
      used.

   EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache:   The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally
      short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is
      responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC
      mappings.  This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-
      to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and
      relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively
      static, and much more global in scope.

   EID-Prefix:   An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
      allocated to a site by an address allocation authority.  EID-
      Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses.  EID-Prefix
      allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set
      is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.

   End-System:   An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
      packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header.  The end-system
      supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 5]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


      header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing
      domain).  An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router
      device, or any network appliance.

   Endpoint ID (EID):   An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
      lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
      The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
      host's "local" IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet
      must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
      manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally
      unique.  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.  Note that EID blocks MAY
      be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network
      topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database.  In
      addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local
      structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure
      is not visible to the global routing system.  In theory, the bit
      string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC
      for a different device.  When used in discussions with other
      Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an
      "LEID".  Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer
      to an LEID.

   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR):   An ITR is a router that resides in a
      LISP site.  Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
      destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
      by the ITR.  The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
      and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  The router then
      prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
      the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
      mapping lookup in the destination address field.  Note that this
      destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has
      better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
      destination EID.  In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
      end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
      toward the Internet on the other side.

      Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
      Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
      regarded as an ITR.  The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
      on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
      RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's
      supplied EID).



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 6]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   LISP Header:   LISP header is a term used in this document to refer
      to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
      specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR
      prepends or an ETR strips.

   LISP Router:   A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
      of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR),
      or Proxy-ETR (PETR).

   LISP Site:  LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
      under a single technical administration.  LISP routers that reside
      in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
      edge network from the core network.

   Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs):  Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
      LISP header.  They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
      down status of all ETRs at the local site.  These bits are used as
      a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
      status.  The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
      reachability algorithms described in Section 10.

   Negative Mapping Entry:   A negative mapping entry, also known as a
      negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix
      is advertised or stored with no RLOCs.  That is, the Locator-Set
      for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count
      of 0.  This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from
      a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database.
      There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a
      Negative Map-Reply.

   Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses:   PA addresses are an address block
      assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site
      connects.  Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
      provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and
      is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into
      the underlay network.  Traditionally, IP multihoming has been
      implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
      visible prefix.

   Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses:   PI addresses are an address
      block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with
      any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular
      service provider) and are therefore not topologically aggregatable
      in the routing system.

   Proxy-ETR (PETR):   A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832].  A
      PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
      send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 7]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   Proxy-ITR (PITR):   A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832].  A
      PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
      send packets to destinations at LISP sites.

   Recursive Tunneling:   Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
      more than one LISP IP header.  Additional layers of tunneling MAY
      be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
      as needed.  When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
      is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
      header.

   Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR):   An RTR acts like an ETR to
      remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
      header.  This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling.  Doing this
      allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the
      overhead of additional tunnel headers.  =
[Luigi]
As stated for = -07.
Following sentence not needed here. (it is = specified in the operation part of the document)
Delete from here:
Any references to tunnels
      in this specification refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they
      are never statically configured.
to = here.
 When using multiple mapping
      database systems, care must be taken to not create re-
      encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.

   Route-Returnability:  Route-returnability is an assumption that the
      underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.
      When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
      returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion.  A
      route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
      a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
      destination of the original message appears as the source of the
      returned message.

   Routing Locator (RLOC):   An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
      [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  An RLOC is
      the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one
      or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable
      blocks
remove = =E2=80=9CAgregatable"

that are assigned to a site at each =
point to which it
      attaches to the underlay network; where the topology is defined by
      the connectivity of provider networks.  Multiple RLOCs can be
      assigned to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a
      site.

   Server-side:  Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate
      that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a
      destination EID.

   TE-ETR:   A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider
      network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering
      purposes.




Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 8]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   TE-ITR:   A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider
      network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic
      Engineering purposes.

   xTR:   An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
      flow is not part of the context description.  "xTR" refers to the
      router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
      the term "Tunnel Router".  For example, "An xTR can be located at
      the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
      functionality at the CE router.

4.  Basic Overview

   One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they
   do today.  The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and
   connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do not change.
   In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint
   Identifiers (EIDs).

   Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
   addresses.  When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
   referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs).  Most routers along a path
   between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/
   forwarding lookups on the destination addresses.  For routers between
   the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the
   destination host, the destination address is an EID.  For the routers
   between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.

   Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router".  A Tunnel Router
   prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
   prior to final delivery to their destination.  The IP addresses in
   this "outer header" are RLOCs.  During end-to-end packet exchange
   between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
   packet, and an ETR strips the new header.  The ITR performs EID-to-
   RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the
   RLOC as one of its IP addresses.

   Some basic rules governing LISP are:

   o  End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs.  They don't know
      that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get
      to their intended destinations.  In a system where LISP is
      deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and assist
      in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be
      routed.  The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not
      change.

   o  EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                 [Page 9]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   o  Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for
      further information.

[Luigi]
As stated for -07 and discussed later: = merge the three bullets above so to simplify the flow.
Here is the proposed single-bullet text:

o =    End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. =  EIDs are typically 
      = IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are supported by = LISP, 
      see [RFC8060] for = further information). End-systems don't know
  =     that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that = packets get
      to their intended = destinations.  In a system where LISP is
  =     deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and = assist
      in delivering them = across the network core where EIDs cannot be
  =     routed.  The procedure a host uses to send IP packets = does not
      = change.
   o  LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses.  See
      details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".

   o  RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
      topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
      Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.

   o  When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address
      either an EID or RLOC.  When acting as a host (e.g., when
      terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH),
      TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
      use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose.  An EID
      that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
      an EID is only routable within the scope of a site.  A typical BGP
      configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
      a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions
      to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to
      terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site.

   o  Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to-
      end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation.  They are
      expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be
      encapsulated for inter-site communication.

   o  EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a manner
      that is optimized for administrative convenience and to facilitate
      scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database.
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07 the above bullet (even if modified compare to -07) is = about scalability and should be removed.
   o  EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
      local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).

   An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
   when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired.  A potential
   use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
   Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network.  In such
   a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
   additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header
   would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic
   engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic
   engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists).

   In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
   encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two
   LISP headers can be prepended to a packet.  For initial LISP
   deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 10]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity
   separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service
   provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.

   Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
   For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
   might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
   host.  Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
   connected to the destination host.  Another example, perhaps for a
   VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
   site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
   Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
   Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.

4.1.  Packet Flow Sequence

   This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow,
   including also control-plane information as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The example also assumes the following
   conditions:

   o  Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
      "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if =
the site
      was not using LISP.

   o  Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
      (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
      provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.

   o  The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
      destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
      located anywhere in the LISP site.

   o  A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the
      destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a
      default route.  Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database
      system by using the LISP control-plane protocol documented in
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   o  Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology
      using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol.

   Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server
   host2.xyz.example.com:

   1.  host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
       host2.xyz.example.com.  It does a DNS lookup on
       host2.xyz.example.com.  An A/AAAA record is returned.  =
This



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 11]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


       address is the destination EID.  The locally assigned address of
       host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID.  An IPv4 =
or IPv6
       packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
       IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.

   2.  The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
       of one of the ETRs at the destination site.  The specific method
       used to do this is not described in this example.  See
       [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for further information.

   3.  The ITR sends a LISP Map-Request as specified in
       [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  Map-Requests SHOULD be rate-limited.

   4.  The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the
       corresponding ETR.  When the Map-Request arrives at one of the
       ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
       control message.

   5.  The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
       matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to-
       RLOC mapping database.  This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR
       is supporting for the site it resides in.  If there is no match,
       the Map-Request is dropped.  Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is
       returned to the ITR.

   6.  The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to
       check for format validity), and stores the mapping information
       from the packet.  This information is stored in the ITR's EID-to-
       RLOC map-cache.  Note that the map-cache is an on-demand cache.
       An ITR will manage its map-cache in such a way that optimizes for
       its resource constraints.

   7.  Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
       host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended =
by the
       ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
       address learned from the ETR.  Note that the packet MAY be sent
       to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
       to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
       Locator-Set policy.

   8.  The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
       address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
       of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
       the attached destination host.

   9.  In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
       direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps
       the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 12]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


       RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet.
       Such a cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping and only
       contains a single RLOC for the EID in question.  More complete
       information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending
       a LISP Map-Request for that EID.  Both the ITR and the ETR MAY
       also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC.

5.  LISP Encapsulation Details

   Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
   larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to
   the ETR.  It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get
   fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR.  Instead, the packet
   is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is
   returned to the source.

   In the case when fragmentation is needed, this specification
   RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support for one of the
   proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes.  Two existing schemes
   are detailed in Section 7.

   Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
   architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
   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
   is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
   format).  The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
   homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
   combinations MUST be supported.  Additional types of EIDs are defined
   in [RFC8060].

5.1.  LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format



















Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 13]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|  IHL  |    DSCP   |ECN|          Total Length         |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   OH  |  Time to Live | Protocol =3D 17 |         Header Checksum       =
|
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                    Source Routing Locator                     |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                 Destination Routing Locator                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port =3D xxxx      |       Dest Port =3D 4341      =
  |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   L   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|  IHL  |    DSCP   |ECN|          Total Length         |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   IH  |  Time to Live |    Protocol   |         Header Checksum       |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                           Source EID                          |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                         Destination EID                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       IHL =3D IP-Header-Length

5.2.  LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|    DSCP   |ECN|           Flow Label                  |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Payload Length        | Next Header=3D17|   Hop Limit   =
|
   v   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
   O   +                                                               +
   u   |                                                               |
   t   +                     Source Routing Locator                    +
   e   |                                                               |



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 14]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   H   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   d   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   ^   +                  Destination Routing Locator                  +
   |   |                                                               |
    \  +                                                               +
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port =3D xxxx      |       Dest Port =3D 4341      =
  |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   L   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|    DSCP   |ECN|           Flow Label                  |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /   |         Payload Length        |  Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
   v   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
   I   +                                                               +
   n   |                                                               |
   n   +                          Source EID                           +
   e   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   H   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   d   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   ^   +                        Destination EID                        +
   \   |                                                               |
    \  +                                                               +
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5.3.  Tunnel Header Field Descriptions

   Inner Header           (IH):  The inner header is the header on the
      datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200]
      [RFC2474].  The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.

   Outer Header: (OH)  The outer header is a new header prepended by an
      ITR.  The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 15]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


      router's EID-to-RLOC Cache.  The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)"
      from [RFC0768].  The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
      'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and
      7.2.

   UDP Header:  The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when
      encapsulating a packet.  See Section 12 for details on the hash
      algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the
      inner header.  The destination port MUST be set to the well-known
      IANA-assigned port value 4341.

   UDP Checksum:  The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
      by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation
      [RFC6935] [RFC6936].  When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
      received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
      decapsulation.  When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
      checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
      When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
      choose to verify the checksum value.  If it chooses to perform
      such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
      silently dropped.  If the ETR chooses not to perform the
      verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
      packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation.  The handling of UDP
      zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
      LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].

   UDP Length:  The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
      packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
      the UDP and LISP header lengths.  For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
      the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
      Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
      the UDP and LISP headers.

   N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit.  When this bit is set to 1,
      the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
      contain a Nonce.  See Section 10.1 for details.  Both N- and
      V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet.  If they are, a
      decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
      having a Nonce value present.

   L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit.  When
      this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
      32 bits of the LISP header are in use.








Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 16]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


     x 1 x x 0 x x x
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                      Locator-Status-Bits                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit.  This bit MUST be ignored
      and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0.  When the N-bit is
      set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the
      nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
      encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR.  See
      Section 10.1 for details.

   V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit.  When this bit is set to
      1, the N-bit MUST be 0.  Refer to Section 13.3 for more details.
      This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this
      case as:

     0 x 0 1 x x x x
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|  Source Map-Version   |   Dest Map-Version    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit.  See Section 8 for more details.
      When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is
      reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an
      Instance ID.  If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits
      are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt.  The format of the
      LISP header would look like this:

     x x x x 1 x x x
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 Instance ID                   |     LSBs      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   R: The R-bit is a Reserved bit for future use.  It MUST be set to 0
      on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   KK:  The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are
      encrypted.  The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
      encrypted.  See [RFC8061] for further information.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 17]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   LISP Nonce:  The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
      randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1.  Nonce
      generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
      required to generate different nonces when sending to different
      destinations.
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07: What is a destination? Should be different RLOCs, for = clarity.
However, the same nonce can be used for a period of
      time to the same destination.  The nonce is also used when the
      E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the other
      side when packets are returned.  When the E-bit is clear but the
      N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously
      requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce.  See
      Section 10.1 for more details.

   LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs):  When the L-bit is also set, the
      'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
      indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
      source site.  Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
      value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
      The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
      significant bit of the field.  The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
      is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1.  When a
      Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
      that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status.  See
      Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
      the ETRs at the same site.  When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
      that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
      different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
      encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
      that the inner-header source EID address matches.  If the LSB for
      an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC
      with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.

[Luigi]
The following part is the ECN = part and as afar as I cans is the only change proposed in -09
(09 includes the text proposed by Albert)


   When =
doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

   o  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
      the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
      Live' field.

   o  The outer-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class'
      field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header
      'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below).

   When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

   o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
      the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
      Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
      less than the Time to Live value of the inner header.  Failing to
      perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 18]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


      to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This
      check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
      packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.

   o  The inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class'
      field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header
      'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below).

   Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
   encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
   new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
   header minus 1.

   Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
   preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
   second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
   packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
   misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for
   traceroute packets.

   The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6
   and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic
   Class' field [RFC3168].  The 'ECN' field requires special treatment
   in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].  An
   ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
   header to the outer header.  Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
   'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
   If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
   value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/
   PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped
   outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward
   the packet beyond the ETR.  These requirements preserve CE
   indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and
   becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the
   tunnel endpoints.

6.  LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache

   ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to-
   RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator
   sets.  The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to
   the corresponding RLOC network attachment point.

   When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to
   destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the
   EID is done to the map-cache.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 19]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the map-
   cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location.

   If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using
   the LISP control-plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The
   mapping is then stored in the local map-cache to forward subsequent
   packets addressed to the same EID-prefix.

   The map-cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based
   on the associated Time to live.  In addition, entries can be updated
   with more current information, see Section 13 for further information
   on this.  Finally, the map-cache also contains reachability
   information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability
   information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see
   Section 10 for the specific mechanisms.

7.  Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets

   This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed
   the path MTU between the ITR and ETR.

   It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
   mechanism SHOULD be implemented.  Both or neither can be used, since
   it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
   issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.

   Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
   and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
   also apply to a TE-ITR.

7.1.  A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling

   An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
   follows:

   1.  Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
       prepends to a packet.  This includes the UDP and LISP header
       lengths.

   2.  Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
       an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
       intermediate routers to fragment the packet.

   3.  Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
       packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the
       effective MTU can be met.  That is, L =3D S + H.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 20]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
   octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
   octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets
   from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the
   original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments.  A LISP header is then
   prepended to each fragment.  The size of the encapsulated fragments
   is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path
   MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.

   When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
   individually encapsulated packets.  It strips the LISP headers and
   then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
   destination site.  The two fragments are reassembled at the
   destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
   the source host.  Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
   encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.

   This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates
   a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0.  When the
   'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6
   packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet
   when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/
   Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S
   is (L - H).

   When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
   implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
   can be avoided.  An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
   to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU
   issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.

   This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500.

7.2.  A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling

   An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows
   and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]:

   1.  The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
       Map-Cache entry.  The effective MTU is what the core network can
       deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.

   2.  When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet
       with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can
       deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
       ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message to the ITR.  The
       ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is




Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 21]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


       affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new
       effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry.

   3.  When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
       site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
       stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
       EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Unreachable/
       Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source.  The packet size
       advertised by the ITR in the ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-
       Needed message is the effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation
       length.

   Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
   stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
   destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.

8.  Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP

   There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level.
   For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping
   addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization.
   For these and other scenarios where segregation is needed, Instance
   IDs are used.

   An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet.  An ITR
   that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
   router to uniquely identify the address space.  The value is copied
   to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
   to 1.

   When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
   header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
   to use for the inner destination EID lookup.

   For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
   24-bit Instance ID.  See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case
   details.

   The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT
   [RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length.  That means the control-plane
   can store more instances than a given data-plane can use.  Multiple
   data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as the low-order 24
   bits don't overlap among xTRs.








Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 22]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


9.  Routing Locator Selection 
[Luigi]
As stated = for -07:

Large = part of this section is about control plane issues and as such should be = put in 6833bis.

What this section should = state is that priority and weight are used to select the RLOC to use.
Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and = we do not know neither priority nor weight.

All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not = in this document.


   =
Both the client-side and server-side MAY need control over the
   selection of RLOCs for conversations between them.  This control is
   achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID-
   to-RLOC Map-Reply messages.  Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be
   gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request
   messages.

   The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
   controls that are available:

   o  The server-side returns one RLOC.  The client-side can only use
      one RLOC.  The server-side has complete control of the selection.

   o  The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
      has the same best Priority.  The client can only use the subset
      list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side.  In
      this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load-
      splitting across its members.  The client-side can use RLOCs
      outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
      is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255).  Some
      sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
      destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
      has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
      list are unreachable.

   o  The server-side sets a Weight of 0 for the RLOC subset list.  In
      this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
      spread across the subset list.  Control is shared by the server-
      side determining the list and the client determining load
      distribution.  Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
      server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.

   o  Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send
      a Map-Request.  For example, if the server-side ETR does not send
      Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the
      client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability
      and preferability.  Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side
      ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the
      outer-header source RLOC of received packets.  The client-side ITR
      controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer-
      header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the
      server-side ETR uses to return traffic.  Since no Priority or
      Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST
      assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority
      with a Weight of zero.  In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding




Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 23]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


      cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on
      Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large.

   o  A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a
      received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few
      seconds, pending verification.  Verification is performed by
      sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP
      source address) of the received encapsulated packet.  A reply to
      this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-
      Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the
      time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply.  When
      a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer
      occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches
      the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.  This "gleaning" mechanism
      is OPTIONAL.

   RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
   reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1.  When
   the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the
   RLOC.  Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that
   stored in the mapping database system provides reachability
   information for RLOCs.  Note that reachability is not part of the
   mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing
   Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section.

10.  Routing Locator Reachability

   Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently
   defined:
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07:

There exists data-plane based reachability mechanisms and = control plane reachability mechanisms.
We have to keep = here only the data plane based mechanism and move the other in = 6833bis.

We need to keep: 1, 6, = Echo-Nonce, 

We need to move: 2, 3, 4, = 5,  RLOC-Probing


   1.  An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
       an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR.  If the ETR is
       also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
       ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
       RLOC.

   2.  An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host
       Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using.  This indicates that
       the RLOC is likely down.  Note that trusting ICMP messages may
       not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely.
       Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices
       in treating these conditions.

   3.  An ITR that participates in the global routing system can
       determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base
       (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 24]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   4.  An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a
       destination host.  This occurs if an ITR attempts to use
       interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
       non-LISP-capable site.

   5.  An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a
       previously sent Map-Request.  The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is
       likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the
       ITR.

   6.  When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
       source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up.

   7.  An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms
       described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing.

   When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
   Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
   will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
   reachability for all ETRs at the site.  CE-based ITRs at the source
   site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
   IGP as follows:

   o  Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
      route into the site IGP.

   o  If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its
      default route will either time out or be withdrawn.

   Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
   originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
   for them.

   RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1.  The
   Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
   to n-1 starting with the least significant bit.  For example, if an
   RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal
   value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
   significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
   the packets they encapsulate.

   When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in
   the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field.  When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the
   ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating
   packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down.  It will only resume
   using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
   value of 1.  Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set
   per EID-Prefix.  Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 25]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the
   list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that
   particular EID-Prefix.  Refer to Section 19 for security related
   issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits.

   When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
   still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided
   they are injected into the IGP.  This is typically done when a /32
   address is configured on a loopback interface.
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.


   When ITRs receive ICMP =
Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable
   messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain
   from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map-
   Replies.  However, using this approach is unreliable because many
   network operators turn off generation of ICMP Destination Unreachable
   messages.
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: The = above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.

= If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable message, it MAY originate its own ICMP Destination Unreachable message destined for the host that originated the data packet the ITR encapsulated.
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: The = above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.

= Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the RIB to see if a locator address from a Locator-Set in a mapping entry matches a prefix. If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default- Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the Locator even though the Locator-Status-Bits indicate that the Locator is up. In this case, the path from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the Locator is not available. More details are in [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications].
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: The = above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.

= Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator, and if a Map- Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined. Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control messages originated by Tunnel Routers for active flows, so Locators are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised.
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: The = above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.

= This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When a Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply with Priority 255.
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: The = above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.

= The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate- limited. Locator reachability testing is never done with data packets, since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end sessions.
[Luigi]
As stated for -07: The = above paragraph has to move to 6833bis.

Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page 26] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable. Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine reachability. 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different sites, a data-plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data packet. When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is forwarded as normal. When the ETR next sends a data packet to the ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set and E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the path to and from the ETR is up. The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is variable and is a choice left for the implementation. If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision MAY be overridden by other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for that EID-Prefix. Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce mechanism to operate. The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting. However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page 27] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an ITR that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC- probe Map-Reply message. Note other Locator Reachability mechanisms can be used to compliment or even override the echo nonce algorithm. See the next section for an example of control-plane probing. 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm

[Luigi]
As stated for -07: This whole section has to go to = 6833bis..

The = fact that (P)ITRs use this mechanism does make it a data-plane = mechanism. is the LISP control plane running on (P)ITRs that does it, = using control plane messages.
   RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the
   reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a
   Map-Cache entry.  The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply
   messages is used for RLOC-Probing.

   RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an
   ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator
   address from one of its own locator addresses.  A Map-Request used as
   an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to
   the mapping database system as one would when soliciting mapping
   data.  The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of
   the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR.  The ITR MAY include a
   mapping data record for its own database mapping information that
   contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site.  RLOC-probes
   are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval.

   When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it
   returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set.  The source address of
   the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping
   data for the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request.  This provides
   the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get
   mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping
   entries.

   There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC-Probing.  The greatest
   benefit of RLOC-Probing is that it can handle many failure scenarios
   allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific Locator is



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 28]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust
   mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached
   Locator.  RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT)
   estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network
   management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths.  The
   major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control
   messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those
   benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times
   is very small.

11.  EID Reachability within a LISP Site

   A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs.  The hosts and
   infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
   Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
   mapping system.  One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
   reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
   When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
   R-bit associated with its own Locator.  And when the ETR is also an
   ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data
   header.

   It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site
   partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the
   EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub-
   ranges of the EID-Prefixes.  Note that this is not a new problem
   introduced by the LISP architecture.  The problem exists today when a
   multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its reachability upstream.

12.  Routing Locator Hashing

   When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message
   that is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set
   for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values
   for each locator address.  When more than one best Priority Locator
   exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against the
   corresponding Locators.

   The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a
   Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:

   1.  Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional
       5-tuple hash can be used.  The traditional 5-tuple hash includes
       the source and destination addresses; source and destination TCP,
       UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers;
       and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of
       a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site.  When a
       packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 29]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


       destination addresses only from the header are used to compute
       the hash.

   2.  Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
       stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.

   3.  The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
       minus 1".  Use the remainder to select the Locator in the
       Locator-Set.

   Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number
   in the outer UDP header needs to be set.  Selecting a hashed value
   allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups
   (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of
   such LAGs.  Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since
   packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are
   originated by different EIDs at the source site.  A suggested setting
   for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash
   function on the inner header, as described above.

   Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
   balance packet load across members of a LAG.  The 5-tuple hash
   includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
   source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
   is TCP or UDP.  For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
   encapsulation.

13.  Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07:

This is a control plane issue, as such it has to go in = 6833bis, with two exception:
The very first paragraph = stetting the problem, and the versioning subsection, because it is a = data-plane mechanism.
   Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
   store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
   date mapping is to re-request the mapping.  However, the ITRs do not
   know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
   which ITRs requested its mappings.  For scalability reasons, it is
   desirable to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for
   ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently
   communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.

   When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end of
   a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings.  We assume that new
   mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping
   but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list.  So,
   some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old
   mapping that is used until they time out.  When an ITR has only an
   old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that
   correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply
   ignores them.  However, this can only happen for locator addresses




Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 30]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in the
   existing Locator-Set.

   When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, to
   maintain lexicographic order, the SMR procedure in Section 13.2 is
   used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the new Locator-Status-Bit mappings.

   When a Locator record is removed from a Locator-Set, ITRs that have
   the mapping cached will not use the removed Locator because the xTRs
   will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0.  So, even if the Locator is in
   the list, it will not be used.  For new mapping requests, the xTRs
   can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as
   well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0.  This
   forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed
   Locator.

   If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one
   will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new
   records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be
   useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings
   can be efficiently packed.

   We propose here three approaches for Locator-Set compaction: one
   operational mechanism and two protocol mechanisms.  The operational
   approach uses a clock sweep method.  The protocol approaches use the
   concept of Solicit-Map-Requests and Map-Versioning.

13.1.  Clock Sweep

   The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of
   count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached.
   The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours.  So,
   there is a 24-hour window to time out old mappings.  The following
   clock sweep procedure is used:

   1.  24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network
       administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock
       sweep window.

   2.  During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply
       messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records.  The TTL
       for these mappings is set to 1 hour.

   3.  24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out,
       and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour.  During
       this 1-hour window, the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages
       with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set to
       1 minute.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 31]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   4.  At the end of the 1-hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply
       messages with the new (changed) mapping records.  So, any active
       caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not cached,
       or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached.  The new mappings
       are cached with a TTL equal to the TTL in the Map-Reply.

13.2.  Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)

   Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site
   where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for
   Map-Reply messages.  SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update
   the mappings they have cached.

   Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their
   mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their mappings
   updated.  As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests (called an
   SMR message) from those sites to which it has been sending
   encapsulated data for the last minute.  In particular, an ETR will
   send an SMR to an ITR to which it has recently sent encapsulated
   data.  This can only occur when both ITR and ETR functionality reside
   in the same router.

   An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message.  An ITR
   or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message.
   Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder MUST rate-limit
   these messages.  Rate-limiting can be implemented as a global rate-
   limiter or one rate-limiter per SMR destination.

   The following procedure shows how an SMR exchange occurs when a site
   is doing Locator-Set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping:

   1.  When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ETRs at the site
       begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each Locator
       in each Map-Cache entry the ETR caches.

   2.  A remote ITR that receives the SMR message will schedule sending
       a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR
       message or to the mapping database system.  A newly allocated
       random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one
       copied from the SMR message.  If the source Locator is the only
       Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a
       Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the
       single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to
       accept the Map-Request.

   3.  The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a
       Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping.  When
       Map-Versioning as described in Section 13.3 is used, an SMR



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 32]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


       sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date database
       mapping.

   4.  The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the
       Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the
       SMR-invoked Map-Request.  The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate-
       limited.  This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion.

   5.  The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record the fact
       that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new
       mapping data in the Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the
       Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets
       going to the remote site.  The ETR then stops sending SMR
       messages.

   For security reasons, an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map-
   Replies.  To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a
   sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified.  If an ITR
   receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the
   Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map-
   Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database
   system.  Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to
   reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the
   authoritative source of the mapping data.

   When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not
   have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send
   an SMR-invoked Map-Request.  This scenario can occur when an ETR
   sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored
   in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be
   sending packets to the site.  There is no point in updating the ITRs
   until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to
   obtain a Map-Cache entry.

13.3.  Database Map-Versioning

   When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
   the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
   ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
   started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.

   An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version
   Number.  This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number.  ITRs
   include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
   encapsulate to the site.  When an ETR decapsulates a packet and
   detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the
   current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in
   Section 13.2 occurs.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 33]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map-
   Version Number.  This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.
   When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map-
   Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a
   Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one
   of the ETRs for the source site.

   A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so
   values that are greater are considered to be more recent.  A value of
   0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version
   Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no
   comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.

   A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
   well.  This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs
   for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map-
   Version Number.

   See [RFC6834] for a more detailed analysis and description of
   Database Map-Versioning.

14.  Multicast Considerations

   A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
   architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
   independent receiver host locations.  The address encoding itself
   does not determine the location of the receiver(s).  The multicast
   routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates,
   determine where the receivers are located.

   In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
   a Routing Locator.  Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs
   to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP
   header.  Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP
   header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID.
   The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address),
   prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the
   destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing
   Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means to
   determine the group address mapping.

   With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR prepends
   its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header.
   Just like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address.
   This source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator
   address, MUST be globally routable.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 34]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native
   multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping
   System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay
   with support from the Mapping System.  See [RFC6831] and
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast], respectively, for details.
   Details for LISP-Multicast and interworking with non-LISP sites are
   described in [RFC6831] and [RFC6832].

15.  Router Performance Considerations

   LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly".  A
   few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement
   LISP:

   o  When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
      destination address may not be the address of the router.  This
      makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
      hardware.  This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
      Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
      by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
      translation).  These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
      that control-plane processing SHOULD be performed.  The forwarding
      logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
      necessary.  There are a few proven cases where no changes to
      existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data-
      plane.

   o  On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
      octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part
      of the outgoing encapsulation procedure.  Routers that support
      Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
      tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action.

   o  A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on
      can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding).  The VRF's
      routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.

   For performance issues related to map-cache management, see
   Section 19.

16.  Mobility Considerations

[Luigi]
As stated for -07:

Move it = out. Mobility is equivalent to mapping change, it is a CP issue.

move it in an OAM document.

   There are several kinds of mobility, of which only some might be of
   concern to LISP.  Essentially, they are as follows.







Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 35]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


16.1.  Slow Mobility

   A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and
   its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes upstream
   providers.  Changes in EID-to-RLOC mappings for sites are expected to
   be handled by configuration, outside of LISP.

   An individual endpoint wishes to move but is not concerned about
   maintaining session continuity.  Renumbering is involved.  LISP can
   help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by
   decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces
   used by its ISPs [RFC4984].

16.2.  Fast Mobility

   Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively
   rapidly, changing its IP-layer network attachment point.  Maintenance
   of session continuity is a goal.  This is where the Mobile IPv4
   [RFC5944] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used and
   primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored, such as
   the mechanisms in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] when the EID moves but
   the RLOC is in the network infrastructure.

   In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information.  When a packet
   arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-to-RLOC mapping and use that
   mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID.  It can do this after
   performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new
   network location does have an internal route to that endpoint.
   However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node assigned
   the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised.

   Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which all
   routing information is disseminated before packets can be forwarded.
   In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future
   use, we are moving to an environment where some information may have
   to be obtained after packets are in flight.  Modifications to IP
   mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of
   the overall system.  Anything that decreases the number of new EID-
   to-RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the validity
   of an EID-to-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful.

   In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly changing
   xTRs.  A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large as
   a whole site.  This is different from site mobility in that it is
   fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility
   in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs.  However, the mechanisms
   are the same, and there is no new overhead in LISP.  A map request
   for any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile prefix.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 36]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be useful
   to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic
   updates of the database.

   The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be
   explored further.  Specific improvements to the entire system will
   depend on the details of mapping mechanisms.  Mapping mechanisms
   should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for
   mobile nodes.  See [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] for more recent
   mechanisms which can provide near-zero packet loss during handoffs.

16.3.  LISP Mobile Node Mobility

   A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility
   by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions
   and acting as a simple ITR/ETR.  By doing this, such a "LISP mobile
   node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are not
   advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing
   system.  These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system
   in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to
   only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node.

   Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and
   RLOC are co-located in the roaming node.

17.  LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods
Luigi]
As stated for = -07:

This ia = an OAM issue and has to be moved out of the document.

   This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed
   in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario.
   For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer
   to [RFC7215].

   There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized
   versus distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating
   Tunneling.  When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching,
   the following issues SHOULD be considered:

   o  Are the xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all
      the memories of each router?  A centralized cache is when an ITR
      keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to.  The packet
      takes a direct path to the destination Locator.  A distributed
      cache is when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel
      Routers (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries for
      the EIDs it is encapsulating to.  So, the packet takes a path
      through RTRs that have a different set of cache entries.

   o  Should management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a
      few xTRs, just enough for redundancy?



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 37]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   o  In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load,
      since caches are built and stored dynamically.  On the other hand,
      using more ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to-
      RLOC mappings need to be explicitly configured.

   When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, the
   following issues SHOULD be considered:

   o  Flat tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between the
      source site and destination site.  This generally offers better
      paths between sources and destinations with a single encapsulation
      path.

   o  Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again further
      encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to
      perform Traffic Engineering.  When doing VPN-based tunneling, the
      site has some control, since the site is prepending a new
      encapsulation header.  In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site
      MAY have control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if
      the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control.
      Recursive Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but
      with the benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that
      have more resources available.

   o  The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only
      require one encapsulation header.  So, if a packet needs to be re-
      routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re-
      Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC.

   The next sub-sections will examine where xTRs and RTRs can reside in
   the network.

17.1.  First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs

   By locating xTRs close to hosts, the EID-Prefix set is at the
   granularity of an IP subnet.  So, at the expense of more EID-Prefix-
   to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each xTR can remain
   relatively small.  But caches always depend on the number of non-
   aggregated EID destination flows active through these xTRs.

   With more xTRs doing encapsulation, the increase in control traffic
   grows as well: since the EID granularity is greater, more Map-
   Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers.

   The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub
   routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network
   have better price-memory ratios than their core router counterparts.
   Memory is typically less expensive in these devices, and fewer routes



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 38]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   are stored (only IGP routes).  These devices tend to have excess
   capacity, both for forwarding and routing states.

   LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches.  These
   devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports
   facing the Internet.  Spare capacity is also often available in these
   devices.

17.2.  Border/Edge xTRs

   Using Customer Edge (CE) routers for xTR placement allows the EID
   space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of RLOCs
   assigned to the CE-based xTRs for that site.

   This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop xTR
   scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management touch
   points is reduced, allowing better scaling.

   One disadvantage is that fewer network resources are used to reach
   host endpoints, thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain and
   creating network choke points at the CE xTR.

   Note that more than one CE xTR at a site can be configured with the
   same IP address.  In this case, an RLOC is an anycast address.  This
   allows resilience between the CE xTRs.  That is, if a CE xTR fails,
   traffic is automatically routed to the other xTRs using the same
   anycast address.  However, this comes with the disadvantage where the
   site cannot control the entrance point when the anycast route is
   advertised out from all border routers.  Another disadvantage of
   using anycast Locators is the limited advertisement scope of /32 (or
   /128 for IPv6) routes.

17.3.  ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs

   The use of ISP PE routers as xTRs is not the typical deployment
   scenario envisioned in this specification.  This section attempts to
   capture some of the reasoning behind this preference for implementing
   LISP on CE routers.

   The use of ISP PE routers for xTR placement gives an ISP, rather than
   a site, control over the location of the ETRs.  That is, the ISP can
   decide whether the xTRs are in the destination site (in either CE
   xTRs or last-hop xTRs within a site) or at other PE edges.  The
   advantage of this case is that two encapsulation headers can be
   avoided.  By having the PE be the first router on the path to
   encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can
   decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the
   destination end site.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 39]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over
   where its packets flow or over the RLOCs used.  Other disadvantages
   include difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between CE
   and PE routers.

   As mentioned in earlier sections, a combination of these scenarios is
   possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead; if both site
   and provider want control, then Recursive or Re-Encapsulating Tunnels
   are used.

17.4.  LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs

   LISP routers can be deployed behind Network Address Translator (NAT)
   devices to provide the same set of packet services hosts have today
   when they are addressed out of private address space.

   It is important to note that a locator address in any LISP control
   message MUST be a routable address and therefore [RFC1918] addresses
   SHOULD only be presence when running in a local environment.  When a
   LISP xTR is configured with private RLOC addresses and resides behind
   a NAT device and desires to communicate on the Internet, the private
   addresses MUST be used only in the outer IP header so the NAT device
   can translate properly.  Otherwise, EID addresses MUST be translated
   before encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs are not in use.
   Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co-
   located in the same device.

17.5.  Packets Egressing a LISP Site

   When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one
   ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second.  This second
   ITR's cache MAY not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping
   entries as the first.  If this second ITR does not have these
   mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved
   from the mapping system.  The retrieval of these messages may
   increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system.

18.  Traceroute Considerations
[Luigi]
As stated for = -07:

I = consider traceroute again an OAM issue.
   When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a
   destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it
   to see the entire path.  Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR
   to the ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single
   hop.  However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the
   user can see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP host
   to a destination LISP host:





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 40]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


      Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs):

          source host ---> first hop ... next hop ---> ITR

      Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs):

          ITR ---> next hop ... next hop ---> ETR

      Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs):

          ETR ---> next hop ... last hop ---> destination host

   For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
   in the normal manner as they are today.  The ITR performs a TTL
   decrement and tests for 0 before encapsulating.  Therefore, the ITR's
   hop is seen by the traceroute source as having an EID address (the
   address of the site-facing interface).

   For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
   to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer
   header, so the destinations of the ICMP messages are the ITR RLOC
   address and the source RLOC address of the encapsulated traceroute
   packet.  The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to inspect the
   traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to the address of
   the traceroute client and also retain the core router IP address in
   the ICMP message.  This is so the traceroute client can display the
   core router address (the RLOC address) in the traceroute output.  The
   ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to the TTL decrement to 0,
   as the previous core routers did.

   For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be
   decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent into
   the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't the
   final destination.  If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on the
   path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop
   router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the
   source EID of the traceroute client.  The ICMP message will be
   encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the
   originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be delivered
   to the host.

18.1.  IPv6 Traceroute

   IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above, since the
   entire traceroute data packet is included in the ICMP Time Exceeded
   message payload.  Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special
   attention to forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute source.




Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 41]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


18.2.  IPv4 Traceroute

   For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure, since IPv4
   ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and
   8 octets that follow the IP header.  Therefore, when a core router
   sends an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in the
   ICMP payload is the encapsulated header it prepended, followed by a
   UDP header.  The original invoking IP header, and therefore the
   identity of the traceroute source, is lost.

   The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache traceroute
   IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding IPv4
   Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR.  The
   ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers
   of traceroute packets.  It will select a 16-bit number as a key to
   find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received.
   When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the
   16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header.
   When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP
   header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload,
   thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the
   traceroute source.  The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload
   and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source
   retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded
   message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute
   destination).

   The signature of a traceroute packet comes in two forms.  The first
   form is encoded as a UDP message where the destination port is
   inspected for a range of values.  The second form is encoded as an
   ICMP message where the IP identification field is inspected for a
   well-known value.

18.3.  Traceroute Using Mixed Locators

   When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and
   the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, one
   cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute.  Segment 2 of the
   traceroute cannot be conveyed to the traceroute source, since it is
   expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format
   for the type of traceroute it originated.  Therefore, in this case,
   segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop.  All the ITR has to
   do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer,
   encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated
   using an RLOC from a different address family.  This will cause no
   TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 42]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


19.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833], in
   addition [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication and integrity to
   LISP mappings.
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07:

lisp-sec is control-plane has to be referenced in = 6833bis.

authentication and integrity of mappings is a control plane = issue.

   A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what
   follows we provide a summary.

   The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a
   mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets.  Specifically, an xTR can
   learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and
   source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping
   into its map-cache.  An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID
   address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID.  If
   the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by
   redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially
   overloading it.

   The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC data-
   plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce-
   Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be
   manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack.  An off-path
   attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate such
   mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable.  This can be used
   also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim
   of overload it.

   Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR
   that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the
   peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a
   fresh mapping.  This can be used by an attacker to forge the map-
   versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive
   amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them.

   Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment
   and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB
   or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms.
   In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective
   technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the control-plane.

20.  Network Management Considerations

   Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
   protocol suite can be operationally managed.  These mechanisms can be
   found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 43]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


21.  IANA Considerations

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
   data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].

21.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers

   The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for
   lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively.  IANA has updated
   the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows:

       lisp-data      4341 udp    LISP Data Packets
       lisp-control   4342 udp    LISP Control Packets
[Luigi]
As = stated for -07:

4342 is = control-plane and MUST be requested to IANA in the 6833bis = document.

22.  References

22.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), December
              2017.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 44]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC7833]  Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A
              RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier
              Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security
              Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

22.2.  Informative References

   [AFN]      IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.=


   [CHIAPPA]  Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed",
              1999,
              <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 45]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01
              (work in progress), November 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
              Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
              Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
              progress), April 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress),
              October 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
              Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive
              RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in
              progress), November 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14
              (work in progress), October 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
              draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work in
              progress), November 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work in
              progress), November 2017.

   [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]
              Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of
              Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01
              (work in progress), January 2009.

   [LISA96]   Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin,
              "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System
              Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 46]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   [OPENLISP]
              Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
              Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
              2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.

   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
              by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
              January 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC4192]  Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
              Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4192>.

   [RFC4866]  Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route
              Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4866>.

   [RFC4984]  Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
              from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
              RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
              2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 47]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   [RFC6832]  Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
              "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.

   [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>.

   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.

   [RFC6935]  Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
              UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.

   [RFC6936]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
              for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
              RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

   [RFC7052]  Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.

   [RFC7215]  Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
              Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
              Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.

   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.

   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
              February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 48]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   [RFC8061]  Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.

   [RFC8111]  Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
              Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
              Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.










































Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 49]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
   initial ideas for LISP.  His consultation continues to provide value
   to the LISP authors.

   A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
   providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
   of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
   architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
   practical and incremental transition for the Internet.

   The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have
   contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal.
   They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller,
   Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston,
   David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley,
   Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler,
   Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi
   Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry
   Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van
   Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien
   Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David
   Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin,
   Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari
   Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu,
   Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri
   Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina
   Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils,
   Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez.

   This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
   An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working
   group document that became this RFC.

   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
   documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
   meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
   last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]







Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 50]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08

   o  Posted January 2018.

   o  Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.

   o  Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.

   o  Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
      Iannone.

   o  Ran IDNITs on the document.

B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07

   o  Posted November 2017.

   o  Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
      addresses.

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06

   o  Posted October 2017.

   o  Put RTR definition before it is used.

   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
      hosts.  Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".

   o  Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets.

   o  ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.

   o  Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.

   o  Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.

   o  Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.

   o  Clarify when private addreses can be used.

B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05

   o  Posted August 2017.

   o  Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 51]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04

   o  Posted July 2017.

   o  Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.

   o  Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
      over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.

B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03

   o  Posted May 2017.

   o  Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
      Considerations section to RFC6833bis.

B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02

   o  Posted April 2017.

   o  Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.

B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01

   o  Posted March 2017.

   o  Include references to new RFCs published.

   o  Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.

   o  Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.

   o  Remove references to "experimental".

B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00

   o  Posted December 2016.

   o  Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
      -rfc6830-00 individual submission.  No other changes made.

Authors' Addresses









Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page 52]
=0C
Internet-Draft                    LISP                      January 2018


   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: =
farinacci@gmail.com


   Vince Fuller
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   EMail: =
vince.fuller@gmail.com


   Dave Meyer
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   EMail: =
darlewis@cisco.com


   Albert Cabellos
   UPC/BarcelonaTech
   Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3
   Barcelona, Catalunya
   Spain

   EMail: =
acabello@ac.upc.edu








Farinacci, et al.         Expires July 13, 2018                [Page =
53]

= --Apple-Mail=_51FE3D12-393C-4C91-8721-43E1FAF44168-- From nobody Tue Jan 23 07:12:01 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CA3126C23 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:12:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qO1ML9ZlEfE5 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (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 85AE11205D3 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id c2so2042363qtn.9 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HsJSMc3zpqYP5WoW0/s1KbN/vbCViTrgM42vCUpJXp8=; b=NCIqmsu40nH75ZyvEfGUDrSGy7jx2fAyH7D5PWhmuY/YbmErG+V6gR1UAIS4IslQ3y 7YV9KL2hhDM2CvXqQNx7V6p0qcXdoD+LlEFduUxsa/X7go7RHktmjM9fZofZW9iQYNMW Mw8NI7JmBDbKkSlLAD69+uLnl6GvpASEQlDio6xzFmQWl4GbeYMpe4UCJNwAXDOPJZrB RNyhtadz6uiznTfH9z5OYbhvygHb7irsYxY3pwZEgiX5z3EWfMMf9glalJmwnliPmmIk skOuNUZVLDdPYFfUUup10szuBslfwcS3nxV0WvUkvJd7N88UCC+8mtv9tVNkCu7Xad8f JYuQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=HsJSMc3zpqYP5WoW0/s1KbN/vbCViTrgM42vCUpJXp8=; b=Sqfw11gBGRq5y7zRZkyVjfSGRYwz/O2ZnQiJ5Xr0h8yOE8QQHJERIUM79zgWraMMlL TPTbeqgX7Gusoiulq4TrTEOPc8io6sbqv9LR15Ifv8ODtPIJ7Dkka+bKxC5WICPZT8mB i4vDkHv7fGcUAIagiuctf1rtAHMIivAK+wuIiQufxnN4RyPGp/wnSHP5tVmcTln41phC XgEpMDNUBlvgGnb28vlG2Xg4K4SLDjo6CeSG569OOMd15wcGuucrRVT5Ay+msogYlCVj /2fTOjFv/cT5n59MrUGsl33RymfErI0ZnZ79l5KvcARl8MDeG6ZouFBJmDVunMNH9kRw dgqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcfjbduyWnQTdbYn4jaPPTQ366Py7qMAQex/4i5TFmGgEmJ72an KHcqOaD8xMPXpX1SBudgUCQADe9W X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226md0CRkbGU9kq46l79l0xIV8WoAaLsBFtaGV9OJul9aB1czlIEZwezczPQxN62K7GbWVG3Rg== X-Received: by 10.200.15.83 with SMTP id l19mr4217760qtk.45.1516720317644; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.4.8] ([50.235.163.251]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z140sm11806052qkb.51.2018.01.23.07.11.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:56 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: <327012BF-6840-4019-A9FE-39279032459D@gigix.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:11:55 -0800 Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <679ACE36-D505-4370-BD36-76A6C855FE31@gmail.com> References: <327012BF-6840-4019-A9FE-39279032459D@gigix.net> To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:12:00 -0000 >> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 = respectively.=20 >=20 > For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as follows: >=20 > Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 > [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is > the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one > or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address = blocks=20 > assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the = underlay=20 > network, as such they represent the identifiers of the underlay. > Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to=20 > multiple ETR devices at a site. Adding =E2=80=9Cidentifier of the underlay=E2=80=9D does not improve or = simplify the definition. It makes it more confusing IMO. People will = interpret LISP has IDs in the underlay. Note in dozens of conversations = I've had with people on LISP who are new to the concepts refer to RLOCs = as =E2=80=9Crouting IDs=E2=80=9D. And then when I ask them to clarify if = they mean =E2=80=9CEIDs=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CRLOCs=E2=80=9D, they say = =E2=80=9Coh EIDs=E2=80=9D. The definition above will not help with this confusion. I would like to keep the definition as is with your edits from your = lastest commentary review. Thanks, Dino From nobody Wed Jan 24 05:12:44 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE4112D94E for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 pkhy-AJ-Gpul for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (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 0C34212420B for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id f3so8552112wmc.1 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7Ep8C2bJiv5/HsDBEBnqgIZ+aV6FrYgRJcsInbfA9Wg=; b=sZuxlmL6hJ2E31u4ytKguvCwN7y6d2Vs23NQ6PTSIGNaY1CKGbZ56Q1+jECjFFi20a jTxAlsD+/eO0wTKXBpjm8KxoCFGyr07+QgnQ1eAoJwajvY/vc3KWziGdn3WLXIg80GiC IdVn1EP36ckLHknxZBwvTjTyudJysRKeI2wvwdnMC5wdGmpMnYxYlhvcOeGQdcyevdsD C1mYXq47163XRaRat/z+u4wspOwtoA1GwUMaPG5T6hK6Zon6GfVvIvIfb4R81WFLlvt7 dDPnnUn7MdjUVTeb1xUtH7MGdv0GZ4bYRV+fgPJsvb5ml0VAN2LHH5tzyzx4FJfZjotB cSVQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7Ep8C2bJiv5/HsDBEBnqgIZ+aV6FrYgRJcsInbfA9Wg=; b=QVvDyFKClUfH15cI8JqHnipdg10MoAaBaJGHYAi/CJYV1/BaYL0AqjwYlL/c8z3Y1a 6FGjD39iw2Jsw9AUSxwriNWHq+MyFlXxY8BFujDzf0XdjTsoAfzXuKeVKoS1ZNpxA/Yt EyJB15dV/S+ilPXRTbGRJc/LI3YuCNW67QjCnQXw66/nay8acjgcmvidAj9okcXHlQTo 5kf7tR9lt5t8Ra80z9iHj7aH5KebdtPSMesuQvEdUYYuqXp2yfP3A+N/8NVoT3prw3Ah +pT1d7RKMiG0Zy+rbGfZpj8Nk4uERzxkPiJav5xf4t4yDFtp7DDPKvHKrB5p3c1FrowE ZHmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdGA2gP5Htp1ZmtJImMRhb1mLmatlQEPWi5+ugHDa3GcW/6SpNZ d5bWM9VqEpSsAaysdl/t+VfiCjHlPzE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227pRNaldG4epCDDFI0/A1u91RuWGgMFmg24tT5BVf6x5nCP8Hc3J3xHZkv9W9y1q5Cw3JtIdQ== X-Received: by 10.80.183.170 with SMTP id h39mr24420200ede.124.1516799559391; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:8094:d68e:bf33:ec7c? ([2001:660:330f:a4:8094:d68e:bf33:ec7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b27sm289588edc.28.2018.01.24.05.12.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:12:37 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <679ACE36-D505-4370-BD36-76A6C855FE31@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:12:38 +0100 Cc: Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <327012BF-6840-4019-A9FE-39279032459D@gigix.net> <679ACE36-D505-4370-BD36-76A6C855FE31@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:12:43 -0000 > On 23 Jan 2018, at 16:11, Dino Farinacci wrote: >=20 >>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 = respectively.=20 >>=20 >> For the RLOC I would put modify the definition as follows: >>=20 >> Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 >> [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is >> the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one >> or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from address = blocks=20 >> assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the = underlay=20 >> network, as such they represent the identifiers of the underlay. >> Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to=20 >> multiple ETR devices at a site. >=20 > Adding =E2=80=9Cidentifier of the underlay=E2=80=9D does not improve = or simplify the definition. It makes it more confusing IMO. People will = interpret LISP has IDs in the underlay. Note in dozens of conversations = I've had with people on LISP who are new to the concepts refer to RLOCs = as =E2=80=9Crouting IDs=E2=80=9D. And then when I ask them to clarify if = they mean =E2=80=9CEIDs=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CRLOCs=E2=80=9D, they say = =E2=80=9Coh EIDs=E2=80=9D. >=20 > The definition above will not help with this confusion. >=20 > I would like to keep the definition as is with your edits from your = lastest commentary review. >=20 > Thanks, > Dino >=20 I don=E2=80=99t have a strong opinion on this point. You can keep the = original text if you wish. L. From nobody Wed Jan 24 12:02:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietf.org Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B10F12700F; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:02:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: lisp@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.70.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <151682416438.22613.16116767032737844305@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:02:44 -0800 Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00.txt X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:02:44 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG of the IETF. Title : LISP Generic Protocol Extension Authors : Darrel Lewis John Lemon Puneet Agarwal Larry Kreeger Paul Quinn Michael Smith Navindra Yadav Fabio Maino Filename : draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2018-01-24 Abstract: This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-protocol encapsulation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jan 25 06:11:59 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCC812421A for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:11:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.018 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.018 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 U45lo17PIJmP for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) (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 347F61241FC for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m197so4897542vka.3 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:11:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PdbkrbBCjpBaNy0aDiyTpXsGTL3iCatKO3G80aLORq0=; b=Sebwl6+C1bQ8youDG4ZFo5zy3uyt97CdDJCBxMIz8MO+A4tw19wTHaOI3gyuQ8yfSE EopIVAcKRyup0n0bsv77gdbS2ceLbcfTzgggWENKKqphwuV73rg1bPMA/GV5Iti96EX0 MtBDygZoCPJybkbbMmxVuUlcsCLf/bvMgeANgBAzlNRm39ssq8tfREh3nfJZAy7UA18c rPncMT2InaX/rIKb6wUr6CsOZonWocyLC5YJy7u3BRvw57qAUz2UTPi/wm8kYnUHtmMQ eWeuMzRHnsID7Qn1M32j+y9M2ae052f+u4ix8Zd2PyQ4vMp06MFx8XnaB15upGYQ+zI8 5E+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PdbkrbBCjpBaNy0aDiyTpXsGTL3iCatKO3G80aLORq0=; b=TzuQrdpmqQ8pHD0q66k3ToUbl2pdqOl2OQjS8pTRYnXjrNXDWuka1Rdz9WOMpt75Gl T2lQKrRiN5EvyTXkWIXKZylv/nD+3uXMQbT3go8gMvPUk4v8JHdKiZfTycQ4eB4JtkwO rdteh8+dbAM1BZkhIdnt97N2d9pvv5Se3EFdL5dxmOfDkAAXp/DwzY/Ke5G8NNWzvZ6U wRxnDjtlp2zYdtfRjqkhOQe9cLdgvwmuJAZge4/GM+6WOdJJhpvXhvs2UQq8EiFhDE89 S/8cXIy0saMVLatY+OlSoCcPLLF64ZEZxbddRi48lg9UpKMXlZdq/HuPkdYbfsKbHZIa Gx4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcMU4WzuO7285Tb5nXAvDOtml7fZx+DtksT76Hfm0Cr1YF+/xWj PNwYuCiT8M5r9oV1T0HT14BvKFOJ0Xema4yPHTwH4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224i5GEpwt0poBVh26fUXtjb0wpvnA8QwycIIimHKsFd/EmlFsMQqTpS096tbSIZJYb9M5cp/42QE6zmj27KScs= X-Received: by 10.31.242.204 with SMTP id q195mr7213727vkh.188.1516889455146; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:10:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.32.66 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:10:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> From: Padma Pillay-Esnault Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:10:54 +0100 Message-ID: To: Dino Farinacci , acabello@ac.upc.edu Cc: Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Padma Pillay-Esnault Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c14c2022346a005639a599e" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:11:59 -0000 --94eb2c14c2022346a005639a599e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Dino and Albert The doc reads well. Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on the list Page 4 *"Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a connection initiation attempt by an EID."* PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not initiate anything. Suggest something like this. *"Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a connection initiation attempt by the end system (represented by an EID)"* Page 6 *The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally unique.* PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below *The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be globally unique.* Page 8 *An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.* PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping entry where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC. *Page 8 * *When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.* PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Security Considerations section as this is an exploit possibility. Page 13 *"gleaned" mapping* PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D in the definition sec= tion. Page 17 *"The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are encrypted."* PPE 6: Nit - Typo "*encapsualted" -> "**encapsulated"* Page 20 *"When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the map-cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location."* PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for consistency with rest of document. Page 23 "*The server-side sets a Weight of 0..."* PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero". Page 23 "*Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the client determining load distribution." * PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side" *"Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the client-side determining load distribution."* Page 24 *When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches* *the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1] This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL.* PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution. Changes in the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache fast =E2=80=A6however this text make it sound that this is not an option after f= irst packet. Page 25 "Note that trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices in treating these conditions." PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible. Page 25 *"An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address."* PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entry? We are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the protocol. Page 38 *"For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer to [RFC7215]."* PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> "network" Page 40 *"By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the destination end site."* PPE 14: Nit Typo "*encapsuluation" -> "encapsulation"* Page 43 "*If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially overloading it."* PPE 15: Nit typo "*victim;s" -> "**victim's"* Thanks Padma On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote= : > > Should I review 09 or 08? > > It would be better to do -09. If I had known comments were coming from yo= u > I would have waited to put in Albert=E2=80=99s text. What I did in -09 is= simply > cut-and-paste his text. > > > But please once you reply to this mail than you stick to the decision > until I review the document. > > I won=E2=80=99t make any other changes until I see your comments. > > Dino > > > > > L. > > > > > >> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:30, Dino Farinacci wrote: > >> > >> Here is a -09 proposal to add your requested change C below. All the > other points are still open for discussion. > >> > >> Dino > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Jan 12, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Albert Cabellos < > albert.cabellos@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following c= hanges > which I believe have support. > >>> > >>> Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes > to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures th= e > most relevant ones. > >>> > >>> Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes li= sted > below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. > >>> > >>> WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: > >>> > >>> ------- > >>> > >>> A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI > >>> > >>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the = overlay=E2=80=99 > and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively. > >>> > >>> C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap > operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text need= s > to be validated by experts): > >>> > >>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: > >>> > >>> o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in th= e > case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field= . > >>> > >>> o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field > (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from > the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) > considering the exception listed below. > >>> > >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 o= f > the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to > avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation > MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header= . > Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer > header to the new outer header. > >>> > >>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: > >>> > >>> o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in th= e > case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field= , > when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to > Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause > the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across > encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when > doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destin= ed > for a LISP site. > >>> > >>> o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field > (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from > the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) > considering the exception listed below. > >>> > >>> o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 o= f > the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to > avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field > contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the > Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy > the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inn= er > header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These > requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverse= s > a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion > between the tunnel endpoints. > >>> > >>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to > re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the ne= w > outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header min= us > 1. > >>> > >>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it > preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, an= d > more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the > event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. S= ee > Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. > >>> > >>> D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stati= ng that the > data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities an= d > weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document. > >>> > >>> E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D co= nsidering the > following changes: > >>> > >>> * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) > and Echo-Nonce > >>> * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 > (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a > response) and RLOC probing > >>> > >>> > >>> F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis > >>> > >>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement > Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > --94eb2c14c2022346a005639a599e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Dino and Albert=C2=A0

The doc read= s well.
Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 y= ou posted on the list=C2=A0

Page 4
"Client-side:=C2=A0 Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate=C2=A0a connection initiation attempt by an EID."

PPE 1:=C2=A0Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not initiate anything. Sugg= est something like this.

"Client-side:=C2=A0 Client-side i= s a term used in this document to indicate=C2=A0a connection initiation=C2= =A0attempt by the end system (represented by an EID)"


Page = 6
The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a ho= st's "local" IP address.=C2=A0 An EID used on the public Inte= rnet must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that man= ner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally unique.

PPE 2: Shoul= dn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below

Th= e source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's &= quot;local" IP address.=C2=A0 An EID used on the public Internet MUST = have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this = means, among other things, that it MUST be globally=C2=A0unique.

Page 8
= An EID maps=C2=A0to one=C2=A0or more RLOCs.

PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on nega= tive mapping entry where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC.

<= /div>

Page 8=C2=A0
When us= ing multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-= encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.

PPE 4: Suggest to add "= ;re-encapsulation" in the list in Security Considerations section as t= his is an exploit possibility.


Page = 13
"gleaned" mapping

PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D = in the definition section.

Page 17
&= quot;The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are=C2=A0encrypted."

PPE 6: Nit - = Typo "encapsualted" -> "encapsulated"<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
Page 20
"When = the lookup succeeds, the locator-set =C2=A0retrieved from the map-cache is = used to send the packet to the EID's topological location."

PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-= set" for consistency with rest of document.

Page 23
"The server-side sets a Weight of 0..."
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">

PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight = of zero".

Page 23
"Control is shared by the server- side determinin= g the list and the client determining load =C2=A0distribution."=C2=A0<= /i>

PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side"

"Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and th= e client-side determining load distribution."

P= age 24
When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleanin= g no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that match= es
the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1] =C2=A0 This &= quot;gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL.

PPE 10: In section 16= .2 later gleaning is used as a solution.=C2=A0 Changes in the gleaned info = could be an interesting way to update the cache fast =E2=80=A6however this = text make it sound that this is not an option after first packet.
=C2=A0=C2=A0
Page 25
"Note that trusting ICMP mes= sages may=C2=A0=C2=A0not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them complet= ely.=C2=A0Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices= =C2=A0in treating these conditions."

PPE = 11: A reference would be useful if possible.

Page = 25
"An ITR that participates in the global routing system= can=C2=A0determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base= =C2=A0(RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address."

PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a B= GP entry? We are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever t= he protocol.

Page 38
"For a more= detailed networkd=C2=A0design deployment recommendation, refer to [RFC7215= ]."

=

PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> "network"= ;

Page 40
"By having the PE be the first router = on the path to encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can = decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the destina= tion end site."

PPE 14: N= it Typo "encapsuluation" -> "encapsulation"

Page 43
"If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s=C2=A0RLOC, potentially overloading it."= ;

PPE 15: Nit=C2=A0<= span style=3D"font-size:9pt">=C2=A0typo "victim;s" -> "victim's"


Thanks
Padma
<= /div>

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Dino Farinacci <= farinacci@gmail.co= m> wrote:
> Should I review 09 or 08?

It would be better to do -09. If I had known comments were coming fr= om you I would have waited to put in Albert=E2=80=99s text. What I did in -= 09 is simply cut-and-paste his text.

> But please once you reply to this mail than you stick to the decision = until I review the document.

I won=E2=80=99t make any other changes until I see your comments.
Dino

>
> L.
>
>
>> On 13 Jan 2018, at 19:30, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a -09 proposal to add your requested change C below. All t= he other points are still open for discussion.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>> <rfcdiff.html>
>>
>> <draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt>
>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com= > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the foll= owing changes which I believe have support.
>>>
>>> Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial = changes to help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captu= res the most relevant ones.
>>>
>>> Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the cha= nges listed below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat.
>>>
>>> WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY:
>>>
>>> -------
>>>
>>> A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI
>>>
>>> B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier = of the overlay=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 re= spectively.
>>>
>>> C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap = operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs = to be validated by experts):
>>>
>>> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:
>>>
>>> o=C2=A0 The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or '= ;Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner= -header 'Time to Live' field.
>>>
>>> o=C2=A0 The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Poi= nt' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class= ' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>
>>> o=C2=A0 The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) f= ield (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires spec= ial treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC31= 68]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inn= er header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'EC= N' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
>>>
>>> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
>>>
>>> o=C2=A0 The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or '= ;Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer= -header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the ou= ter header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header.=C2=A0 F= ailing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header= to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.=C2=A0 This check i= s also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to a= n ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
>>>
>>> o=C2=A0 The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Poi= nt' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class= ' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. >>>
>>> o=C2=A0 The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) f= ield (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires spec= ial treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC31= 68]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint = (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), the= n ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripp= ed outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the p= acket beyond the ETR.=C2=A0 These requirements preserve CE indications when= a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a C= E indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints.
>>>
>>> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re= -encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new ou= ter header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1= .
>>>
>>> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it = preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and = more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the eve= nt there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.=C2=A0 S= ee Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets.
>>>
>>> D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80= =99 stating that the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-c= ache (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM docum= ent.
>>>
>>> E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2= =80=9D considering the following changes:
>>>
>>> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving= a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce
>>> *=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Ho= st Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a M= ap-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing
>>>
>>>
>>> F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis
>>>
>>> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placem= ent Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document >>>
>>>
>>
>

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

--94eb2c14c2022346a005639a599e-- From nobody Thu Jan 25 06:21:37 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DEC612DA27 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:21:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.018 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.018 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 AgcJAR4G3O6N for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com (mail-vk0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) (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 DC4FB120726 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id t4so4910793vkb.9 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:21:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vOykepyJwWsC3mWAxEYA7jpc5ZhTEF+U0LX1KtZhhmE=; b=Tr2F5k/XMmSgo8NMHC7oaJbY6vPSKHkc7Og3wKsw5+M16FSx9V6kNaRP0gbikCvM/4 XlTg70rLxPi+bij2XTELuGOOXi8KGgC/euPQpgoPgkurTwkzkWfp8S+jWhyJD71QgI2i 7cjGInzlHHIADAz1xL1cncSCalmwoJJf7t7AvflpZ7807fxzDlo7Bi9xhkziDk4yPvYd oZnHnFwfCWh8zGG/oIG+aHzxECHym3XOM0HlcCQn/x2CqBvksICuuW0Yf04zn186NLd9 l8M5P3RprlXP/GXzVf5mZ8ZQ3TT6AbpMcsK/imnwaw1ZJjC3OrRx+sPbkaipI+YFdlXd L7GA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vOykepyJwWsC3mWAxEYA7jpc5ZhTEF+U0LX1KtZhhmE=; b=qNpPeZh/rl1RTvieRMuRhrkdIlIzLp4qxvIwDtmoBLcw7TnY0JBhQBaElR/SDBjJHj WlmfOqJYjP22nhLMvGiuDw/3yG/bwKeFGXwm26ncRhSLBjuyQolXNnXy7LzQRoG1bMQh 9iWS67No3bUIadDfda/Mrm0XWtECK47rPc1AZ5Vv2Qrl3BkQypJ2SRsL7mKG2Kc21dI1 doo/lgq+gN+b0hL0S7jcROPq4H+vR7xaPyPwSSCV89cvG/kdINlCvoqwcWko6+wWwgJ1 WatRFgVu8lvQENoGWpASk1F11rKhBVvcULuxQKYCZpJPZiUC3maKc2tXrRW5MpDleiml 4W9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteiubXDJj6CQXPKl4e9dHKpbJEUBhNQvVIRHP61eR4xD+v1CqFI LM3MnROdzA0gvQYXS29sh6A+woE5Ocybd7baqsg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227x4Ja6lLS+j5jqu14EA7Wu6xdG2c0Gtc5lDwHbzu2XFRWxcod1rZz8QVOAlEgWUYDL7FRf2F5dafx0LD9gyS4= X-Received: by 10.31.106.197 with SMTP id f188mr7359058vkc.135.1516890032974; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:20:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.4.231 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 06:20:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Padma Pillay-Esnault Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:20:32 +0100 Message-ID: To: Albert Cabellos Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c09305094303a05639a7b02" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:21:36 -0000 --94eb2c09305094303a05639a7b02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Albert Please find below my comments PPE On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Albert Cabellos wrote: > Hi all > > As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the following chang= es > which I believe have support. > > Please note that I have intentionally ignored minor/editorial changes to > help sync all the participants. I hope that the list below captures the > most relevant ones. > > Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes listed > below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat. > > WG: Please CONFIRM or DENY: > > ------- > > A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI > Confirm > > B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the over= lay=E2=80=99 and > =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively. > Deny - Agree with some others on the list that this does not add much for clarification. > > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation > concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be > validated by experts): > > When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: > > o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the > case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field= . > > o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or > the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the > inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) > considering the exception listed below. > > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of th= e > IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid > discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST co= py > the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. > Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer > header to the new outer header. > > When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: > > o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the > case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field= , > when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to > Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause > the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across > encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when > doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destin= ed > for a LISP site. > > o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or > the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the > outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) > considering the exception listed below. > > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of th= e > IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid > discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contai= ns > a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion > Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit > 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header > that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements > preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunn= el > and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the > tunnel endpoints. > > Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulat= e > after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header > will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. > > Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves > the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more > importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event > there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See > Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. > > > Abstain for now > D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating t= hat the > data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities an= d > weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document. > > Confirm > E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D consid= ering the > following changes: > > * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and > Echo-Nonce > * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 > (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a > response) and RLOC probing > > > Confirm see some of my comments on this on the thread. > F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis > > Confirm > G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement > Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document > > > Confirm Thanks Padma > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > > --94eb2c09305094303a05639a7b02 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Albert=C2=A0

Please find below my co= mments PPE

O= n Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@g= mail.com> wrote:
Hi al= l

As editor of 6830bis I=C2=B4d like to confirm or deny the followin= g changes which I believe have support.

Please note that I have int= entionally ignored minor/editorial changes to help sync all the participant= s. I hope that the list below captures the most relevant ones.

Also note that I don=C2=B4t necessarily agree with all the changes l= isted below, but that=C2=B4s an opinion with a different hat.

WG: Pl= ease CONFIRM or DENY:

-------

A.- Remove definiti= ons of PA and PI

<= PPE> Confirm=C2=A0

= B.- Change definitions of EID and RLOC as =E2=80=98identifier of the overla= y=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98identifier of the underlay=E2=80=99 respectively.= =C2=A0

<PPE> De= ny - Agree with some others on the list that this does not add much for cla= rification.
=C2=A0
=

C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap oper= ation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to b= e validated by experts):

When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

o =C2= =A0The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' fi= eld, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time = to Live' field.

o =C2=A0The outer-header 'Differentiated Ser= vices Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, i= n the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('= ;Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception l= isted below.

o =C2=A0The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' = (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requir= es special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion= [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit = 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.=

When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

=C2=A0o =C2=A0The inner-h= eader 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the ca= se of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' f= ield, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time= to Live value of the inner header.=C2=A0 Failing to perform this check can= cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulati= on/decapsulation cycles.=C2=A0 This check is also performed when doing init= ial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LIS= P site.

o =C2=A0The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code P= oint' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case o= f IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Cla= ss' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.=

o =C2=A0The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field = (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special t= reatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. = If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the = value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR= decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped ou= ter header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet= beyond the ETR.=C2=A0 These requirements preserve CE indications when a pa= cket that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE ind= ication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints.

Note that if= an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decaps= ulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the= same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1.

Copying the Time= to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the ho= st intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides= for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concate= nated tunnels due to misconfiguration.=C2=A0 See Section 18.3 for TTL excep= tion handling for traceroute packets.

<PPE> =C2=A0Abstain for now
=C2=A0
D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Route= r Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating that the data-plane MUST follow what= =C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities and weights), the remaining tex= t should go to an OAM document.

= <PPE> Confirm
=C2=A0
E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D conside= ring the following changes:

*=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Keep bullet point 1 (examine L= SB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce
*=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Move to 6= 833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 = (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC prob= ing

<PPE>=C2=A0Confirm see so= me of my comments on this on the thread. =C2=A0
=C2=A0
F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833= bis

<PPE>=C2=A0Confirm
=
=C2=A0
G.- Move= sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), = 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document

=C2=A0
<PPE>=C2=A0Confirm

=

Thanks
Padma=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


--94eb2c09305094303a05639a7b02-- From nobody Fri Jan 26 10:31:11 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491EB124D68 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 JTL17aXyzcoi for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 1F0371205F0 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i66so799065pfd.7 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=95a3jnoNit6/KXE3RTRdO2G5sfpFmo7rp4q9DqkJvDw=; b=ECZBiFFespnnUdNHN8mWGOwYsNuJUF8FxBfBSgRFdMA1Y/KY7lyVWXZsVSHC+tc3nD y0+eW6INGjffk96Y5Cxsw/71PEZWr9v+W7ZsU/p4dwBhHFfooR19JawyOUKQBT9kE6Rc lmfADHuTYZmspF1fUdcgh9V63RmtafMkCsngGCjVPd/5t7OwqLT6iFxA+JEJeuOy2ZFy nNNR0L5Sk+F30uU2qEbEEwS1lsTMSmHBeAyaQB8MKyaIHpuukKcYFL1OZc9lznG2iQLK FXkoMsGwblmluEFnSeFAjn/ZlTlsdWZ2dUD8XqFY12NpkFSnO9BkkPe/O3q56vIzAIqd nqLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=95a3jnoNit6/KXE3RTRdO2G5sfpFmo7rp4q9DqkJvDw=; b=XVvZyD2LfUZlMhtMWGfLDGnuVd/BiWAbZxAwXEnfN0FheTX3Aafjkh3iiTODTOrn96 N90KGynEBCk4S9pX5cYW1/BfhgFBjHOcuc2Asl0VBXh2tFpo/FHTuozomAyU5m8vlAqL Y8wUHUgQczA9jpR8MWoEI/xWXPkgx8P42j56Zm1HZaflmMV3gHUUr7PW643NywCryJG9 hIT3W/zMPmWr9U1OOvg7JVMgtRD/3IjoYHYd3giH2nKBc6hpXImqmxqf8ogSfai/YAle 6Z8BM8s94V47dIx66VKKdGEMXXntWbsGDHyhoNH22NJT8Sr6klQyNEk/U75WLd7qrrnG 0/8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteLaxyaJ2f44pgdgKii9dI1tMN2Fe9/e8d2bZ9wFtJOaS89xAqv ez3m2otk0XtkCt+wy39z888= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x22582yKQrPA0KZqZyYZ5dOp15c5imOuuZQN/Tg33m8I+39ElDyeXQBUiJqP+CS/w3qOWbnO0ZQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:534f:: with SMTP id b73-v6mr8023000pli.139.1516991467594; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.31.79.147] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t8sm8770048pgr.21.2018.01.26.10.31.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:06 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Dino Farinacci In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 10:31:06 -0800 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <56E6CB70-E784-42A8-9166-5564796D40C2@gmail.com> References: To: Luigi Iannone X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Review 6830bis -08/-09 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:31:10 -0000 I=E2=80=99ll send a new -09 update to the list in my reply to Padma=E2=80=99= s email. >>=20 >> Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to = indicate >> a connection initiation attempt by an EID. =20 >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07. > Following sentence not needed here. (it is specified in the operation = part of the document) >> The ITR(s) at the LISP >> site are the first to get involved in forwarding a packet from = the >> source EID. I have changed the text to reflect Padma=E2=80=99s suggestion. >>=20 >>=20 >> Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR = to >> remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP >> header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing = this >> allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the >> overhead of additional tunnel headers. =20 >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07. > Following sentence not needed here. (it is specified in the operation = part of the document) > Delete from here: >> Any references to tunnels >> in this specification refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; = they >> are never statically configured.=20 Removed. >> Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 >> [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is >> the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to = one >> or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable >> blocks=20 >>=20 > remove =E2=80=9CAgregatable=E2=80=9D Removed. >=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07 and discussed later: merge the three bullets above = so to simplify the flow. > Here is the proposed single-bullet text: >=20 > o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are = typically=20 > IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are supported = by LISP,=20 > see [RFC8060] for further information). End-systems don't know > that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get > to their intended destinations. In a system where LISP is > deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and = assist > in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be > routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not > change. Replaced with your merged text. >>=20 >> o EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a = manner >> that is optimized for administrative convenience and to = facilitate >> scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database. >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07 the above bullet (even if modified compare to -07) = is about scalability and should be removed. Removed. A shame but removed. >> o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable = for >> local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is >> randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce >> generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are >> required to generate different nonces when sending to different >> destinations. =20 >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: What is a destination? Should be different RLOCs, = for clarity. Changed to " when encapsulating to the same ETR=E2=80=9D. >> [Luigi] > The following part is the ECN part and as afar as I cans is the only = change proposed in -09 > (09 includes the text proposed by Albert) It is all Albert=E2=80=99s text. >=20 >=20 >> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >>=20 >>=20 >> Farinacci, et al. Expires July 13, 2018 [Page = 22] >> Internet-Draft LISP January = 2018 >>=20 >>=20 >> 9. Routing Locator Selection=20 >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: >=20 > Large part of this section is about control plane issues and as such = should be put in 6833bis. >=20 > What this section should state is that priority and weight are used to = select the RLOC to use. > Only exception is gleaning where we have one single RLOC and we do not = know neither priority nor weight. >=20 > All the other operational discussion goes elsewhere, but not in this = document. Not changing this to we get more concensus from the working group. >>=20 >> 10. Routing Locator Reachability >>=20 >> Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently >> defined: >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: >=20 > There exists data-plane based reachability mechanisms and control = plane reachability mechanisms. > We have to keep here only the data plane based mechanism and move the = other in 6833bis. All the reachability mechanisms are used for the data-plane. >=20 > We need to keep: 1, 6, Echo-Nonce,=20 >=20 > We need to move: 2, 3, 4, 5, RLOC-Probing Not changing this to we get more concensus from the working group. >=20 >=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can >> still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided >> they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 >> address is configured on a loopback interface. >>=20 >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: The above paragraph has to move to 6833bis. For all your comments like this. I am not changing until there is more = concensus from the working group. >=20 > The fact that (P)ITRs use this mechanism does make it a data-plane = mechanism. is the LISP control plane running on (P)ITRs that does it, = using control plane messages. >> RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine = the >> reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in = a >> Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply >> messages is used for RLOC-Probing. No one said PITRs are special or different than ITRs in this regard. For = both, they use the control plane messages to determine reachabiltity for = RLOCs that THE DATA-PLANE encapsulates to. The data-plane operation = decides based on packet counter, RTT, TTL and other mechanisms if the = RLOC is of quality for use. Any other entity that doesn=E2=80=99t do packet forwarding that does = mapping system lookups doesn=E2=80=99t consider these things. Hence, why = this issue of the control-plane needs to be described in the document = related to packet forwarding. >> 19. Security Considerations >>=20 >> Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833], in >> addition [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication and integrity = to >> LISP mappings. >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: >=20 > lisp-sec is control-plane has to be referenced in 6833bis. >=20 > authentication and integrity of mappings is a control plane issue. Removed. >=20 >> A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what >> follows we provide a summary. >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets >> lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets >>=20 > [Luigi] > As stated for -07: >=20 > 4342 is control-plane and MUST be requested to IANA in the 6833bis = document. Removed and will be moved to RFC6833. Dino From nobody Fri Jan 26 11:20:50 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C13127337 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.402 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.402 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, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] autolearn=no 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 veb7pnrsGIga for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x22b.google.com (mail-pf0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22b]) (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 C1BD4124BE8 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id c6so883253pfi.8 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=FWRmycoXYQVpFBi/awOmSG1LN8eiiAqKMymVZz8oKm8=; b=oYmqojxieT9iKqGM1B+vUdibD4R7FMmHgSDSAi8YwCnd5eov27VZc8RjhkHikUusb1 4S7nyQb4KBuUOPO+myC8SwJthBgmENrsS7xutntJm0BdMewvp1lKpAMYuOaznmem2jbv wTGO2kfQfGHUhE5bLpbJeuie1rKNhpzH3yMw9UCKkaHvFiKrg2alMHo/INq5unGimY8B rDCGUO5JqeyiJ59Oq1uBqfxwoITsEFmGEmrVJ/fkUiV2ZNaP3fAwpNH24kB6TXlBIzlH vZLwvfuagEDnzBxH7E0rArY9xLuIlGPGk1oY//5J5NsysRTXsMmDjK7Kha6bQfLC1T8m aJ1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=FWRmycoXYQVpFBi/awOmSG1LN8eiiAqKMymVZz8oKm8=; b=Pgm1SIAwtZg1Fpmsp2TM5KPw6W56zme3wh2KagEEu8ymFP85WrIiG3hoVYriqV/A1z jjl4q18deJVBYi+ADAgL0E9Z1/om5wJ4AMGexyTN3Hxrul1Rg9wD0pNeta+wtNw3rsEU Usns9AAkoVML3z247Crn1PbstROGFGzedZ/Qri+qBbHohRADWpa1EUdAb5sK78MpoQRF Wqyo9Vsyqlg83mZjWFaf8d0DENHix1xI/esaMH+A3ImTd22MZYX41rSiI2B1W3GzDFKX f+Uci0i4rly8J7tPtD/b0+1HtzDjNtTGoRU4CUuJUAi8KURYjniy8OC1rbGgc5V4p4KX pVxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdfMhOZMGap9ACxp52JpT/ndaK6UdqrvgllFWdAjQCuGeSwvxUh xpncWvE/4UmTruqv3YSF1H8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227mOA4oD0LE+btnow398HUyoQbLWVPk6dW6SSCHAY6AUpNi0UIxKBJ8RM+bjthbXoEKRrn9jg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:14d:: with SMTP id 71-v6mr15260158plb.42.1516994429961; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.31.79.147] ([96.72.181.209]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l10sm22347850pfj.6.2018.01.26.11.20.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:28 -0800 (PST) From: Dino Farinacci Message-Id: <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:20:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: Cc: Albert Cabellos , Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org To: Padma Pillay-Esnault References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:20:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thanks for the detail review Padma. A new update to -09 is enclosed with = a diff file. I will wait until next week to post. I have reflected all of your comments and most of Luigi=E2=80=99s = comments. The only issues open are: (1) Section movement from RFC6830 to RFC6833. (2) If an OAM document is needed. Waiting for more working group concensus on this. > Dear Dino and Albert=20 >=20 > The doc reads well. > Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on = the list=20 >=20 > Page 4 > "Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate = a connection initiation attempt by an EID." > PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not = initiate anything. Suggest something like this. >=20 > "Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate = a connection initiation attempt by the end system (represented by an = EID)=E2=80=9D Fixed. Put in your suggestion. > Page 6 > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a = host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet must have = the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this = means, among other things, that it must be globally unique. >=20 > PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below >=20 > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a = host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have = the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this = means, among other things, that it MUST be globally unique. Changed. > Page 8 > An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. > PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping = entry where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC. I changed to =E2=80=9Czero or more RLOCs.=E2=80=9D. > Page 8=20 > When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to = not create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. >=20 > PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Security = Considerations section as this is an exploit possibility. I have removed the sentence. Because it actually is not true. If you use = different mapping systems and circuitious forwarding occurs. The packet = travels only until its TTL reaches 0. Using the rules for copy inner to = outer and outer to inner during RTR re-encapsulation applies. > Page 13 > "gleaned" mapping >=20 > PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D in the = definition section. Changed. > Page 17 > "The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are = encrypted." >=20 > PPE 6: Nit - Typo "encapsualted" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulated" Fixed. >=20 > Page 20 > "When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the = map-cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location." >=20 > PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for = consistency with rest of document. Thanks. Done. >=20 > Page 23 > "The server-side sets a Weight of 0..." > PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero=E2=80=9D.= Changed. > Page 23=20 > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the = client determining load distribution."=20 >=20 > PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side" >=20 > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the = client-side determining load distribution.=E2=80=9D Done. > Page 24 > When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer = occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches > the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1] This "gleaning" mechanism = is OPTIONAL. >=20 > PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution. Changes = in the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache fast = =E2=80=A6however this text make it sound that this is not an option = after first packet. It is an option when the ETR has no mapping to return packets. Once a = mapping is cache, there is no point to glean since the mapping system = verified the information the same as in the map-cache. > =20 > Page 25 > "Note that trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable, but neither = is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow = current best practices in treating these conditions." >=20 > PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible. Added draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering. > Page 25 > "An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine = that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route = exists that matches the RLOC IP address." >=20 > PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entry? = We are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the = protocol. Yes, we can generalize this. I changed text. > Page 38 > "For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer = to [RFC7215]." >=20 > PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> =E2=80=9Cnetwork" Changed. > Page 40 > "By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it = can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and = Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the destination end = site." >=20 > PPE 14: Nit Typo "encapsuluation" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulation" Changed. > Page 43 > "If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by = redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially = overloading it." >=20 > PPE 15: Nit typo "victim;s" -> =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80=99s=E2=80=9D Changed. Dino --Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=rfcdiff.html Content-Type: text/html; x-unix-mode=0644; name="rfcdiff.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Diff: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt - = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 = = = = =
< draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08.txt  =  draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt >
=
Network Working = Group D. Farinacci = Network Working Group = D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft = V. Fuller Internet-Draft = V. Fuller
Intended status: = Standards Track D. Meyer = Intended status: Standards Track = D. Meyer
Expires: July = 13, 2018 = D. Lewis Expires: July 30, 2018 = D. Lewis
= Cisco Systems = Cisco Systems
= A. Cabellos (Ed.) = A. Cabellos (Ed.)
= UPC/BarcelonaTech = UPC/BarcelonaTech
= January = 9, 2018 = January = 26, 2018
=
= The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) The Locator/ID Separation Protocol = (LISP)
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 = = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
=
Abstract = Abstract
=
This document = describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID This document describes the data-plane protocol for = the Locator/ID
Separation = Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point = Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines = two namespaces, End-point
Identifiers = (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and = Routing Locators
(RLOCs) that = identify network attachment points. With this, LISP (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. = With this, LISP
effectively = separates control from data, and allows routers to create = effectively separates control from data, and = allows routers to create
overlay = networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets = overlay networks. LISP-capable routers = exchange encapsulated packets
according to = EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local = map-cache.
=
skipping to = change at = page 1, line 44 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 1, line 44 =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 = https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at = https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
=
= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six = months Internet-Drafts are draft = documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be = updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any = and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted = by other documents at any
time. It is = inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as = reference
material or to = cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in = progress."
=
This = Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, = 2018. This Internet-Draft will = expire on July 30, 2018.
=
Copyright = Notice Copyright Notice
=
Copyright (c) = 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons = identified as the
document = authors. All rights reserved. = document authors. All rights reserved.
=
This document = is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF = Trust's Legal
Provisions = Relating to IETF Documents = Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
= (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date = of = (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of = this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these = documents
=
skipping to = change at = page 2, line 25 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 2, line 25 =C2=B6
to this = document. Code Components extracted from this document must = to this document. Code Components extracted = from this document must
include = Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of = include Simplified BSD License text as = described in Section 4.e of
the Trust = Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without = warranty as
described in = the Simplified BSD License. = described in the Simplified BSD License.
=
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. = Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. = Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. = Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 = 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel = Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . = . . . . . . 15
6. LISP = EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 = 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing = with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 = 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets = . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A = Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 = 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling = . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . 22 = 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation = with LISP . . . . . . . 22
9. Routing = Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. = Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Routing = Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 = 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. = Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 10.1. = Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.2. = RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 = 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 11. EID = Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Routing = Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 = 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 29
13. Changing = the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 = 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC = Mappings . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. Clock = Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 31
13.2. = Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13.2. = Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13.3. = Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 = 13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14. Multicast = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 = 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15. Router = Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 15. = Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16. Mobility = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 = 16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16.1. = Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16.1. = Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16.2. = Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 16.2. = Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
16.3. = LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16.3. = LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37 = 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation = Methods . . . . . . . . 37
17.1. = First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 = 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17.2. = Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.2. = Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
17.3. ISP = Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 = 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 39
17.4. = LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 40 17.4. = LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 39
17.5. = Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 = 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 40
18. Traceroute = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . 40
18.1. IPv6 = Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 = 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.2. = IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.2. = IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
18.3. = Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 = 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . = . . . . . . . . . . . 42
19. Security = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 19. = Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
20. Network = Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 = 20. Network Management Considerations . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 43
21. IANA = Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21. = IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
21.1. = LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 21.1. = LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
22. = References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22. = References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
22.1. = Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22.1. = Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
22.2. = Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 = 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix A. = Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 = Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix B. = Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 = Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . = 50
B.2. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . = 50
B.3. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 = . . . . . . . . 51 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . = 50
B.4. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 51 = B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . = 50
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 = . . . . . . . . 52 B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 51
B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 52 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 = . . . . . . . . 51
B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 52 B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 51
B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 52 B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 51
B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 51
= B.10. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' = Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 = Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . . . . . . . . 52
=
1. = Introduction 1. Introduction
=
This document = describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol This document describes the Locator/Identifier = Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP = is an encapsulation protocol built around the (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built = around the
fundamental = idea of separating the topological location of a network = fundamental idea of separating the = topological location of a network
attachment = point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. = As a result
LISP creates = two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers = (EIDs), that are
used to = identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and = used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or = Virtual Machines) and
=
skipping to = change at = page 4, line 16 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 4, line 17 =C2=B6
is populated = using the LISP Control-Plane protocol = is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
=
LISP does not = require changes to either host protocol stack or to LISP does not require changes to either host protocol = stack or to
underlay = routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP = underlay routers. By separating the EID = from the RLOC space, LISP
offers native = Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and = mobility, among
other = features. other features.
=
Creation of = LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the Creation of LISP was initially motivated by = discussions during the
IAB-sponsored = Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in = Amsterdam in
October 2006 = (see [RFC4984]) October 2006 (see = [RFC4984]).
=
This document = specifies the LISP data-plane encapsulation and other This document specifies the LISP data-plane = encapsulation and other
LISP = forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] = LISP forwarding node functionality while = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
specifies the = LISP control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can be specifies the LISP control plane. LISP deployment = guidelines can be
found in = [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network = found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes = considerations for network
operational = management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] operational management. Finally, = [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
describes the = LISP architecture. describes the = LISP architecture.
=
2. Requirements = Notation 2. Requirements = Notation
=
=
skipping to = change at = page 4, line 46 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 4, line 47 =C2=B6
value of 0 = used in this specification indicates an unspecified value of 0 used in this specification indicates an = unspecified
encoded = address where the length of the address is 0 octets encoded address where the length of the address is = 0 octets
following = the 16-bit AFI value of 0. = following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
=
Anycast = Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to = Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term = used in this document to
refer to = the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured = and used on
multiple = systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC = can be an
anycast = address in each of their own address spaces. anycast address in each of their own address = spaces.
=
Client-side: = Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate = Client-side: Client-side is a term used in = this document to indicate
a = connection initiation attempt by an EID. The = ITR(s) at the LISP a = connection initiation attempt by an end-system = represented by an
site are the first to get involved in forwarding = a packet from the = EID.
source EID.
=
Data-Probe: = A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated = data packet where
the = inner-header destination address equals the outer-header = the inner-header destination address = equals the outer-header
destination = address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by = a decapsulating
ETR. In = addition, the original packet is decapsulated and ETR. In addition, the original packet is = decapsulated and
delivered = to the destination host if the destination EID is in the = delivered to the destination host if the = destination EID is in the
EID-Prefix = range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. = Otherwise, the packet is
discarded. = A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the = mapping database
designs to = "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an = ETR; in other
cases, = Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design = cases, Map-Requests are used. See each = mapping database design
=
skipping to = change at = page 6, line 16 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 6, line 16 =C2=B6
device, or = any network appliance. device, = or any network appliance.
=
Endpoint ID = (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or = 128-bit (for
IPv6) value = used in the source and destination address fields of IPv6) value used in the source and destination = address fields of
the first = (most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains = the first (most inner) LISP header of a = packet. The host obtains
a = destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address = a destination EID the same way it obtains = a destination address
today, for = example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] today, for example, through a Domain Name System = (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or = Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) = [RFC3261] exchange.
The source = EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms = used to set a
host's = "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet = host's "local" IP address. An EID used = on the public Internet
must have the same properties as any other IP = address used in that MUST have the same properties as any other IP = address used in that
manner; = this means, among other things, that it must= be globally manner; this = means, among other things, that it MUST be = globally
unique. An = EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block unique. 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 = associated with the site where the host = is located. An EID can be
used by a = host to refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY = used by a host to refer to other hosts. = Note that EID blocks MAY
be assigned = in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent = of the network
topology, = to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping = database. In
addition, = an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have = site-local
structure = (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure = structure (subnetting) for routing within = the site; this structure
is not = visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit = is not visible to the global routing = system. In theory, the bit
string that = represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC string that represents an EID for one device can = represent an RLOC
for a = different device. When used in discussions with other for a different device. When used in discussions = with other
=
skipping to = change at = page 7, line 35 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 7, line 35 =C2=B6
=
Negative = Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a = Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping = entry, also known as a
negative = cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix = negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC = entry where an EID-Prefix
is = advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set = is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. = That is, the Locator-Set
for the = EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count = for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has = an encoded Locator count
of 0. This = type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from of 0. This type of entry could be used to = describe a prefix from
a non-LISP = site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the = mapping database.
There are a = set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a There are a set of well-defined actions that are = encoded in a
Negative = Map-Reply. Negative = Map-Reply.
=
Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses: PA addresses are an = address block
assigned to a site by each service provider to = which a site
connects. Typically, each block is a sub-block = of a service
provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) = [RFC4632] block and
is aggregated into the larger block before being = advertised into
the underlay network. Traditionally, IP = multihoming has been
implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its = own globally
visible prefix.
Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses: PI addresses = are an address
block assigned from a pool where blocks are not = associated with
any particular location in the network (e.g., = from a particular
service provider) and are therefore not = topologically aggregatable
in the routing system.
= =
Proxy-ETR = (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A = Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and = described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts = like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of = LISP sites that
send = packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. send packets to destinations at non-LISP = sites.
=
Proxy-ITR = (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A = Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and = described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts = like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that = PITR acts like an ITR but does so on = behalf of non-LISP sites that
send = packets to destinations at LISP sites. = send packets to destinations at LISP sites.
=
Recursive = Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has = Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling = occurs when a packet has
more than = one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY = more than one LISP IP header. Additional = layers of tunneling MAY
be employed = to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or = other re-routing
as needed. = When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header as needed. When this is done, an additional = "outer" LISP header
is added, = and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in = the "inner"
= header. header.
=
= Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR = to Re-Encapsulating Tunneling = Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to
remove a = LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to = prepend a new LISP
header. = This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this = header. This is known as = Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this
allows a = packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without = adding the
overhead = of additional tunnel headers. Any references to = tunnels overhead of = additional tunnel headers. When using multiple
in this specification refer to dynamic = encapsulating tunnels; they = mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create = re-
are never statically configured. When = using multiple mapping
database = systems, care must be taken to not create re-
= encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. encapsulation loops through = misconfiguration.
=
= Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that = the Route-Returnability: = Route-returnability is an assumption that the
underlying = routing system will deliver packets to the destination. = underlying routing system will deliver = packets to the destination.
When = combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and When combined with a nonce that is provided by a = sender and
returned by = a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data = insertion. A
= route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent = with route-returnability check = is verified when a message is sent with
a nonce, = another message is returned with the same nonce, and the = a nonce, another message is returned with = the same nonce, and the
destination = of the original message appears as the source of the destination of the original message appears as the = source of the
returned = message. returned = message.
=
Routing = Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 = [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC8200] = address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router = (ETR). An RLOC is
the = output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to one the = output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to zero
or more = RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from aggregatable = or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that = are
blocks = that are assigned to a site at each point to which it assigned to a site at each point to which it = attaches to the
attaches = to the underlay network; where the topology is defined by = underlay network; where the topology is = defined by the
the = connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be = connectivity of provider networks. = Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
assigned = to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices = at a site.
= site.
=
Server-side: = Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate = Server-side: Server-side is a term used in = this document to indicate
that a = connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a that a connection initiation attempt is being = accepted for a
destination = EID. destination EID.
=
TE-ETR: A = TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider = TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is = deployed in a service provider
network = that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering = network that strips an outer LISP header = for Traffic Engineering
= purposes. purposes.
=
TE-ITR: A = TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider = TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is = deployed in a service provider
=
skipping to = change at = page 9, line 44 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 9, line 28 =C2=B6
prepends LISP = headers on host-originated packets and strips them prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and = strips them
prior to final = delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP = addresses in
this "outer = header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end = packet exchange
between two = Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each = between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends = a new LISP header to each
packet, and an = ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to- packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR = performs EID-to-
RLOC lookups = to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the = RLOC lookups to determine the routing path = to the ETR, which has the
RLOC as one of = its IP addresses. RLOC as one of = its IP addresses.
=
Some basic = rules governing LISP are: Some = basic rules governing LISP are:
=
o = End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. They don't know o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. = EIDs are
that = addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get = typically IP = addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are
to their = intended destinations. In a system where LISP is supported by LISP, see = [RFC8060] for further information). End-
deployed, = LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and assist = systems = don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume
in = delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be = that packets get to their intended = destinations. In a system
routed. = The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept = EID-addressed
= change. packets and assist in = delivering them across the network core
= = where EIDs cannot be routed. The = procedure a host uses to send IP
o EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to = hosts. packets does not = change.
o Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see = [RFC8060] for
further information.
=
o LISP = routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See = o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing = Locator addresses. See
details in = Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by = "mostly".
=
o RLOCs are = always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, = preferably
= topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless = topologically oriented addresses from = provider CIDR (Classless
= Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. = Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
=
o When a = router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address = o When a router originates packets, it MAY = use as a source address
either an = EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host = (e.g., when
=
skipping to = change at = page 10, line 32 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 10, line = 13 =C2=B6
= configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage = where configuration might = demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
a router = could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions = a router could use its "host-like" EID to = terminate iBGP sessions
to other = routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to = to other routers in a site while at the = same time using RLOCs to
terminate = eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the = site.
=
o Packets = with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- = o Packets with EIDs in them are not = expected to be delivered end-to-
end in the = absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping = operation. They are
expected to = be used locally for intra-site communication or to be expected to be used locally for intra-site = communication or to be
= encapsulated for inter-site communication. encapsulated for inter-site communication.
=
o EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically = assigned in a manner
that is optimized for administrative convenience = and to facilitate
scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping = database.
= =
o EIDs MAY = also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for = o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) = in a manner suitable for
local = routing within an Autonomous System (AS). local routing within an Autonomous System = (AS).
=
An additional = LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets = by a TE-ITR
when = re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential = when re-routing of the path for a packet is = desired. A potential
use-case for = this would be an ISP router that needs to perform use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs = to perform
Traffic = Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such = Traffic Engineering for packets flowing = through its network. In such
a situation, = termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an = a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", = an ISP transit acts as an
additional = ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new = prepended header
would be = either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic = would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP = (along an intra-ISP traffic
=
skipping = to change at page 13, line = 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 12, line = 32 =C2=B6
=
8. The ETR = receives these packets directly (since the destination 8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since = the destination
address is = one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity address is one of its assigned IP addresses), = checks the validity
of the = addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to = of the addresses, strips the LISP = header, and forwards packets to
the = attached destination host. the = attached destination host.
=
9. In order = to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse 9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup = in the reverse
direction, = an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache = entry that maps
the source = EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source the source EID (inner-header source IP address) = to the source
RLOC = (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet. = RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in = a received LISP packet.
Such a = cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping = and only Such a cache entry is = termed a "glean mapping" and only = contains
contains = a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete a single RLOC for the EID in question. More = complete information
= information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by = sending about additional RLOCs = SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-
a LISP = Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR = and the ETR MAY = Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY = also
also = influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC. = influence the decision the other makes = in selecting an RLOC.
=
5. LISP = Encapsulation Details 5. LISP = Encapsulation Details
=
Since = additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes = Since additional tunnel headers are = prepended, the packet becomes
larger and can = exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed = from the ITR to
the ETR. It = is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do = not get
fragmented as = they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. = Instead, the packet
is dropped and = an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is is dropped and an ICMP = Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is
returned to = the source. returned to the = source.
=
=
skipping = to change at page 17, line = 48 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 17, line = 15 =C2=B6
x x x x 1 x = x x x x x x 1 x x x
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
= |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version = | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| = Nonce/Map-Version |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| = Instance ID | LSBs | | Instance ID | = LSBs |
= +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+= = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
=
R: The R-bit = is a Reserved bit for future use. It MUST be set to 0 R: The R-bit is a Reserved bit for future use. It = MUST be set to 0
on transmit = and MUST be ignored on receipt. = on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
=
KK: The = KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when = encapsulated packets are
encrypted. = The field is set to 00 when the packet is not encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet = is not
encrypted. = See [RFC8061] for further information. = encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information.
=
LISP Nonce: = The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value = that is
randomly = generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set = to 1. Nonce
generation = algorithms are an implementation matter but are generation algorithms are an implementation matter = but are
required to = generate different nonces when sending to different required to generate different nonces when sending = to different
= destinations. However, the same nonce can be used for a period = of destinations. However, the = same nonce can be used for a period of
time to = the same destination. The nonce is also = used when the time when encapsulating to the same ETR. The nonce is also used
E-bit is = set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the other = when the E-bit is set to request the = nonce value to be echoed by
side when = packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but the the other side when packets are returned. When = the E-bit is clear
N-bit is = set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously but the N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either = echoing a previously
requested = echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. See requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. = See
Section = 10.1 for more details. Section = 10.1 for more details.
=
LISP = Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the = LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the = L-bit is also set, the
= 'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR = to 'Locator-Status-Bits' field = in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
indicate to = an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the = Locators in the
source = site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned = an ordinal
value from = 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry). value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a = mapping entry).
The = Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least = The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from = 0 to n-1 from the least
significant = bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit significant bit of the field. The field is 32 = bits when the I-bit
=
skipping = to change at page 18, line = 42 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 18, line = 9 =C2=B6
that the = inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for = that the inner-header source EID address = matches. If the LSB for
an anycast = Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at = least one RLOC
with that = address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. with that address, and the ETR is considered = 'up'.
=
When doing = ITR/PITR encapsulation: When doing = ITR/PITR encapsulation:
=
o The = outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or = 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = inner-header 'Time to
Live' = field. Live' field.
=
o The = outer-header 'Type of Service' field (or = the 'Traffic Class' o The = outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field
field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be
'Type of Service' = field (with one exception; see = below). copied from the = inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, = in
= the case = of IPv6) considering the exception listed = below.
=
= o The 'Explicit = Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits = 6 and 7
= of the IPv6 = 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
= order to avoid = discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
= ITR encapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
= header to the = outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
= 'ECN' field from = the stripped outer header to the new outer
= = header.
=
When doing = ETR/PETR decapsulation: When doing = ETR/PETR decapsulation:
=
o The = inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in = o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or = 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of = IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the = outer-header 'Time to
Live' = field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is = Live' field, when the Time to Live value = of the outer header is
less than = the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to = less than the Time to Live value of the = inner header. Failing to
perform = this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header = perform this check can cause the Time to = Live of the inner header
to = increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This = to increment across = encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
check is = also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a = check is also performed when doing = initial encapsulation, when a
packet = comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP = site.
=
o The = inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or = the 'Traffic Class' o The = inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' = (DSCP) field
field, in = the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header = (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the = case of IPv6) SHOULD be
'Type of Service' = field (with one exception; see = below). copied from the = outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, = in
= the case of IPv6) = considering the exception listed below.
=
= o The 'Explicit = Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
= of the IPv6 = 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
= order to avoid = discarding indications of congestion = [RFC3168]. If
= the 'ECN' field = contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
= value is '11', = the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
= ETR decapsulation = MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from = the
= stripped outer = header to the surviving inner header that is used
= to forward the = packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
= CE indications = when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
= and becomes = marked with a CE indication due to congestion between
= the tunnel = endpoints.
=
Note that if = an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and = chooses to re-
encapsulate = after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the = encapsulate after decapsulating, the net = effect of this is that the
new outer = header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer = new outer header will carry the same Time to = Live as the old outer
header minus = 1. header minus 1.
=
Copying the = Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: = first, it
preserves the = distance the host intended the packet to travel; preserves the distance the host intended the packet = to travel;
second, and = more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping = second, and more importantly, it provides = for suppression of looping
packets in the = event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated = tunnels due to
=
skipping = to change at page 20, line = 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 19, line = 41 =C2=B6
=
ITRs and PITRs = maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred = as LISP EID-to-
RLOC = Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator = RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from = EID-prefixes to locator
sets. The = cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to = sets. The cache is used to encapsulate = packets from the EID space to
the = corresponding RLOC network attachment point. the corresponding RLOC network attachment = point.
=
When an = ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to = When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from = inside of the LISP site to
destinations = outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the = destinations outside of the site a = longest-prefix match lookup of the
EID is done to = the map-cache. EID is done to the = map-cache.
=
When the = lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved = from the map- When the lookup = succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from = the map-
cache is used = to send the packet to the EID's topological location. cache is used to send the packet to the EID's = topological location.
=
If the lookup = fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using = If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to = retrieve the mapping using
the LISP = control-plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The = the LISP control-plane protocol = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The
mapping is = then stored in the local map-cache to forward subsequent = mapping is then stored in the local = map-cache to forward subsequent
packets = addressed to the same EID-prefix. = packets addressed to the same EID-prefix.
=
The map-cache = is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based = The map-cache is a local cache of mappings, = entries are expired based
on the = associated Time to live. In addition, entries can be updated = on the associated Time to live. In = addition, entries can be updated
with more = current information, see Section 13 for further information = with more current information, see Section = 13 for further information
=
skipping = to change at page 23, line = 32 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 23, line = 17 =C2=B6
list = according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In = list according to the weighting assigned = by the server-side. In
this case, = the server-side controls both the subset list and load- = this case, the server-side controls both = the subset list and load-
splitting = across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs splitting across its members. The client-side can = use RLOCs
outside of = the subset list if it determines that the subset list outside of the subset list if it determines that = the subset list
is = unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some = is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a = Priority of 255). Some
sharing of = control exists: the server-side determines the sharing of control exists: the server-side = determines the
destination = RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side destination RLOC list and load distribution while = the client-side
has the = option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the = has the option of using alternatives to = this list if RLOCs in the
list are = unreachable. list are = unreachable.
=
o The = server-side sets a Weight of 0 for the = RLOC subset list. In o The = server-side sets a Weight of zero for the = RLOC subset list.
this = case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is = In this case, the client-side can choose = how the traffic load is
spread = across the subset list. Control is shared by the server- = spread across the subset list. Control = is shared by the server-
side = determining the list and the client determining load side determining the list and the client-side determining load
= distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if = the distribution. Again, the = client can use alternative RLOCs if the
= server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable. server-provided list of RLOCs is = unreachable.
=
o Either side = (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) = decides not to send
a = Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send = a Map-Request. For example, if the = server-side ETR does not send
= Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving = the Map-Requests, it gleans = RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the
client-side = ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional = RLOC reachability
and = preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side = and preferability. Server-side ETR = gleaning of the client-side
ITR RLOC is = done by caching the inner-header source EID and the ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header = source EID and the
= outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side = ITR outer-header source RLOC of = received packets. The client-side ITR
=
skipping = to change at page 24, line = 45 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 24, line = 30 =C2=B6
an = encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is = an encapsulated data packet received = from an ITR. If the ETR is
also = acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original = also acting as an ITR and has traffic to = return to the original
ITR site, = it can use this status information to help select an ITR site, it can use this status information to = help select an
= RLOC. RLOC.
=
2. An ITR MAY = receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host 2. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or = Host
= Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates = that Unreachable message for an = RLOC it is using. This indicates that
the RLOC = is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP = messages may
not be = desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them = completely.
= Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices = Implementations are encouraged to follow = current best practices
in = treating these conditions. in = treating these conditions = [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering].
=
3. An ITR that = participates in the global routing system can = 3. When an ITR participates in the = routing protocol that operates in
= determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base the underlay routing = system, it can determine that an RLOC is
(RIB) = route exists that matches the RLOC IP = address. down when no Routing Information Base (RIB) entry exists that
= matches the RLOC IP address.
=
4. An ITR MAY = receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a 4. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable = message from a
= destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use = destination host. This occurs if an ITR = attempts to use
= interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a = interworking [RFC6832] and = LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
= non-LISP-capable site. = non-LISP-capable site.
=
5. An ITR MAY = receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a 5. An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in = response to a
previously = sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of = the Map-Reply is
likely up, = since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the likely up, since the ETR was able to send the = Map-Reply to the
= ITR. ITR.
=
skipping = to change at page 37, line = 34 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 37, line = 15 =C2=B6
in LISP = Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to = in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and = are provided on demand to
only the = correspondents of the LISP mobile node. = only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node.
=
Refer to = [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and = Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details = for when the EID and
RLOC are = co-located in the roaming node. = RLOC are co-located in the roaming node.
=
17. LISP xTR = Placement and Encapsulation Methods 17. = LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods
=
This section = will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs = can be placed
in the network = and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario. in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of = each scenario.
For a more = detailed networkd design deployment = recommendation, refer For a more = detailed network design deployment recommendation, refer
to = [RFC7215]. to [RFC7215].
=
There are two = basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: = centralized
versus = distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating = versus distributed caches; and flat, = Recursive, or Re-encapsulating
Tunneling. = When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, = Tunneling. When deciding on centralized = versus distributed caching,
the following = issues SHOULD be considered: the = following issues SHOULD be considered:
=
o Are the = xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all = o Are the xTRs spread out so that the = caches are spread across all
the = memories of each router? A centralized cache is when an ITR = the memories of each router? A = centralized cache is when an ITR
keeps a = cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. The packet = keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is = encapsulating to. The packet
=
skipping = to change at page 39, line = 50 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 39, line = 33 =C2=B6
capture some = of the reasoning behind this preference for implementing = capture some of the reasoning behind this = preference for implementing
LISP on CE = routers. LISP on CE = routers.
=
The use of ISP = PE routers for xTR placement gives an ISP, rather than The use of ISP PE routers for xTR placement gives an = ISP, rather than
a site, = control over the location of the ETRs. That is, the ISP can = a site, control over the location of the = ETRs. That is, the ISP can
decide whether = the xTRs are in the destination site (in either CE decide whether the xTRs are in the destination site = (in either CE
xTRs or = last-hop xTRs within a site) or at other PE edges. The = xTRs or last-hop xTRs within a site) or at = other PE edges. The
advantage of = this case is that two encapsulation headers can be advantage of this case is that two encapsulation = headers can be
avoided. By = having the PE be the first router on the path to avoided. By having the PE be the first router on the = path to
encapsulate, = it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the = ETR can
decapsulate = and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation = path to the decapsulate and = Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsulation path to the
destination = end site. destination end = site.
=
An obvious = disadvantage is that the end site has no control over An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no = control over
where its = packets flow or over the RLOCs used. Other disadvantages = where its packets flow or over the RLOCs = used. Other disadvantages
include = difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between CE = include difficulty in synchronizing path = liveness updates between CE
and PE = routers. and PE routers.
=
As mentioned = in earlier sections, a combination of these scenarios is = As mentioned in earlier sections, a = combination of these scenarios is
possible at = the expense of extra packet header overhead; if both site = possible at the expense of extra packet = header overhead; if both site
and provider = want control, then Recursive or Re-Encapsulating Tunnels = and provider want control, then Recursive or = Re-Encapsulating Tunnels
=
skipping = to change at page 43, line = 7 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 42, line = 36 =C2=B6
expecting = addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format = expecting addresses from intermediate hops = in the same address format
for the type = of traceroute it originated. Therefore, in this case, for the type of traceroute it originated. Therefore, = in this case,
segment 2 will = make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has to segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. = All the ITR has to
do to make = this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer, do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to = the outer,
encapsulating = header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet = is encapsulated
using an RLOC = from a different address family. This will cause no using an RLOC from a different address family. This = will cause no
TTL decrement = to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR. TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between = the ITR and ETR.
=
19. Security = Considerations 19. Security = Considerations
=
Security = considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833],= in Security considerations = for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833].
addition [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication = and integrity to
LISP mappings.
=
A complete = LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what = A complete LISP threat analysis can be found = in [RFC7835], in what
follows we = provide a summary. follows we = provide a summary.
=
The optional = mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to = directly obtain a
mapping from = the LISP encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR can = mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets. = Specifically, an xTR can
learn the = EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the = source RLOC and
source EID of = an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this = new mapping
into its = map-cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID = into its map-cache. An off-path attacker = can spoof the source EID
address to = divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If = address to divert the traffic sent to the = victim's spoofed EID. If
the attacker = spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a = DoS attack by
redirecting = traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, = potentially redirecting traffic to = the spoofed victim's RLOC, = potentially
overloading = it. overloading it.
=
The LISP = Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC data- = The LISP Data-Plane defines several = mechanisms to monitor RLOC data-
plane = reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce- = plane reachability, in this context = Locator-Status Bits, Nonce-
Present and = Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be = Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP = encapsulation header can be
manipulated by = an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An = off-path
attacker able = to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate such = attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a = victim's xTR can manipulate such
mechanisms to = declare a set of RLOCs unreachable. This can be used mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable. = This can be used
also, for = instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim = also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC = reachable with the aim
of overload = it. of overload it.
=
skipping = to change at page 44, line = 13 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 43, line = 38 =C2=B6
found in = [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. found in = [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
=
21. IANA = Considerations 21. 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].
=
21.1. LISP UDP = Port Numbers 21.1. LISP UDP Port = Numbers
=
The IANA = registry has allocated UDP port numbers = 4341 and 4342 for The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the = LISP
lisp-data and lisp-control operation, = respectively. IANA has updated data-plane. IANA has = updated the description for UDP port 4341 = as
the = description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows: follows:
=
lisp-data = 4341 udp LISP Data Packets = lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control = Packets
=
22. = References 22. References
=
22.1. Normative = References 22.1. Normative = References
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
= Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. = Cabellos-Aparicio,
= "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) = Control-Plane",
= draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), December = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 = (work in progress), December
= 2017. 2017.
=
skipping = to change at page 46, line = 42 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 46, line = 25 =C2=B6
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
= Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", = Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, = "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
= draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work in draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 = (work in
= progress), November 2017. = progress), November 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] = [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
= Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual = Private
= Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work in Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 = (work in
= progress), November 2017. = progress), November 2017.
=
= [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering]
= Gont, F., = Gont, G., and C. Pignataro, "Recommendations for
= filtering = ICMP messages", draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-
= = filtering-04 (work in progress), July 2013.
= =
= [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] = [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]
= Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural = Implications of
= Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 = Locator/ID Separation", = draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01
= (work in progress), January 2009. = (work in progress), January 2009.
=
[LISA96] = Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin, [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. = Coffin,
= "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix = Tenth System
= Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996. Administration Conference (LISA 96), = October 1996.
=
= [OPENLISP] [OPENLISP]
=
skipping = to change at page 51, line = 5 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 50, line = 5 =C2=B6
The LISP = working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari = The LISP working group would like to give a = special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the = Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set = of LISP
documents were = being prepared for IESG last call, and for his documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and = for his
meticulous = reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group = meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries = on the 7 working group
last call = documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. last call documents progressing toward = standards-track RFCs.
=
Appendix B. = Document Change Log Appendix B. = Document Change Log
=
[RFC Editor: = Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on = publication as RFC.]
=
B.1. Changes = to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 B.1. = Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
=
= o Posted January = 2018.
=
= o Add more details = in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
= encapsulation and = decapsulation.
=
= o Added clarity to = definitions in the Definition of Terms section
= from various = commenters.
=
= o Removed PA and PI = definitions from Definition of Terms section.
=
= o More editorial = changes.
=
= o Removed 4342 from = IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
=
= B.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
=
o Posted = January 2018. o Posted January = 2018.
=
o Remove = references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. = o Remove references to research work for = any protocol mechanisms.
=
o Document = scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 = compliant.
=
o Made = changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi = o Made changes to reflect comments from = document WG shepherd Luigi
= Iannone. Iannone.
=
o Ran IDNITs = on the document. o Ran IDNITs on = the document.
=
B.2. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 B.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
=
o Posted = November 2017. o Posted November = 2017.
=
o Rephrase = how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer = to [RFC1918]
= addresses. addresses.
=
B.3. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 B.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
=
o Posted = October 2017. o Posted October = 2017.
=
o Put RTR = definition before it is used. o = Put RTR definition before it is used.
=
o Rename = references that are now working group drafts. o Rename references that are now working group = drafts.
=
o Remove = "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other = o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by = a host to refer to other
hosts. = Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". = hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
=
=
skipping = to change at page 51, line = 48 =C2=B6 = skipping to change at page 51, line = 15 =C2=B6
o ETRs may, = rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send = Map-Replies.
=
o Recommend, = rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation = headers to 2.
=
o Reference = VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. = o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
=
o Indicate = that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. = o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when = ITR/ETR are in the same node.
=
o Clarify = when private addreses can be used. = o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
=
B.4. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
=
o Posted = August 2017. o Posted August = 2017.
=
o Make it = clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router = is an RTR.
=
B.5. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
=
o Posted July = 2017. o Posted July 2017.
=
o Changed = reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. = o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
=
o Indicate = that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums = o Indicate that the applicability statement = for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 = adheres to RFC6936. over IPv6 = adheres to RFC6936.
=
B.6. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
=
o Posted May = 2017. o Posted May 2017.
=
o Move the = control-plane related codepoints in the IANA o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the = IANA
= Considerations section to RFC6833bis. = Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
=
B.7. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
=
o Posted = April 2017. o Posted April = 2017.
=
o Reflect = some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien = Sausez.
=
B.8. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
=
o Posted = March 2017. o Posted March = 2017.
=
o Include = references to new RFCs published. o = Include references to new RFCs published.
=
o Change = references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. = o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
=
o Clarified = LCAF text in the IANA section. o = Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
=
o Remove = references to "experimental". o = Remove references to "experimental".
=
B.9. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 B.10. Changes to = draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
=
o Posted = December 2016. o Posted December = 2016.
=
o Created = working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp o Created working group document from = draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 = individual submission. No other changes made. -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other = changes made.
=
Authors' = Addresses Authors' Addresses
= =
Dino = Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
Tasman = Drive Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA = 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA = USA
=
EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com EMail: = farinacci@gmail.com
=
Vince = Fuller Vince Fuller
Cisco = Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 52 change blocks. 
125 lines changed or = deleted 142 lines changed or = added

This = html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available = from http://tools.ietf.org/to= ols/rfcdiff/
=20 =20 = --Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name="draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network Working Group D. Farinacci Internet-Draft V. Fuller Intended status: Standards Track D. Meyer Expires: July 30, 2018 D. Lewis Cisco Systems A. Cabellos (Ed.) UPC/BarcelonaTech January 26, 2018 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 Abstract This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache. LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among other features. 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 https://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 July 30, 2018. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 1] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 22 9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30 13.1. Clock Sweep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13.3. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 16.1. Slow Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 16.2. Fast Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods . . . . . . . . 37 Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 2] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs . . . . . . . 39 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 50 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 50 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 50 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 50 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 51 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 51 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 51 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 51 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 51 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 52 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1. Introduction This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static provisioning is required or necessary. LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane, this document specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 3] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache, called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The map-cache is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to underlay routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among other features. Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in October 2006 (see [RFC4984]). This document specifies the LISP data-plane encapsulation and other LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] specifies the LISP control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can be found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network operational management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] describes the LISP architecture. 2. Requirements Notation 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]. 3. Definition of Terms Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to the data-plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0. Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own address spaces. Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an EID. Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 4] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised. Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint of a LISP tunnel as well. EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own globally visible IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be used. EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is generally short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID- to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively static, and much more global in scope. EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID- Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block. End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 5] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any network appliance. Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange. The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be globally unique. 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. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a different device. When used in discussions with other Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer to an LEID. Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other side. Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's supplied EID). Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 6] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP- specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR prepends or an ETR strips. LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), or Proxy-ETR (PETR). LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the edge network from the core network. Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/ down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator reachability algorithms described in Section 10. Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database. There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a Negative Map-Reply. Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites. Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that send packets to destinations at LISP sites. Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" header. Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 7] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the overhead of additional tunnel headers. When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re- encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination. When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the destination of the original message appears as the source of the returned message. Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to zero or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the underlay network; where the topology is defined by the connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site. Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a destination EID. TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering purposes. TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic Engineering purposes. xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR functionality at the CE router. 4. Basic Overview One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do not change. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 8] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs). Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). Most routers along a path between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/ forwarding lookups on the destination addresses. For routers between the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the destination host, the destination address is an EID. For the routers between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC. Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router". A Tunnel Router prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to- RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the RLOC as one of its IP addresses. Some basic rules governing LISP are: o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End- systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and assist in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not change. o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly". o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) blocks. o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH), TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC; an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 9] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site. o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be encapsulated for inter-site communication. o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for local routing within an Autonomous System (AS). An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists). In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service provider for Traffic Engineering purposes. Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology. For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly connected to the destination host. Another example, perhaps for a VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the site's border router at the service provider attachment point. Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility. 4.1. Packet Flow Sequence This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow, including also control-plane information as specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following conditions: Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 10] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site was not using LISP. o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached. o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be located anywhere in the LISP site. o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database system by using the LISP control-plane protocol documented in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol. Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server host2.xyz.example.com: 1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6 packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR. 2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC of one of the ETRs at the destination site. The specific method used to do this is not described in this example. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for further information. 3. The ITR sends a LISP Map-Request as specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Map-Requests SHOULD be rate-limited. 4. The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the corresponding ETR. When the Map-Request arrives at one of the ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a control message. 5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to- RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 11] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no match, the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is returned to the ITR. 6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to check for format validity), and stores the mapping information from the packet. This information is stored in the ITR's EID-to- RLOC map-cache. Note that the map-cache is an on-demand cache. An ITR will manage its map-cache in such a way that optimizes for its resource constraints. 7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's Locator-Set policy. 8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to the attached destination host. 9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet. Such a cache entry is termed a "glean mapping" and only contains a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map- Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC. 5. LISP Encapsulation Details Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is returned to the source. In the case when fragmentation is needed, this specification RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support for one of the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two existing schemes are detailed in Section 7. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 12] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner 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 is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4 combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined in [RFC8060]. 5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ OH | Time to Live | Protocol =3D 17 | Header Checksum = | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Source Routing Locator | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Destination Routing Locator | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 = | UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Source EID | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Destination EID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IHL =3D IP-Header-Length Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 13] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Payload Length | Next Header=3D17| Hop Limit = | v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | O + + u | | t + Source Routing Locator + e | | r + + | | H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d | | r + + | | ^ + Destination Routing Locator + | | | \ + + \ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Source Port =3D xxxx | Dest Port =3D 4341 = | UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | I + + n | | n + Source EID + e | | r + + | | H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d | | r + + | | Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 14] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 ^ + Destination EID + \ | | \ + + \ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] [RFC2474]. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs. Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)" from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit 'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known IANA-assigned port value 4341. UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation [RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field. When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the verification, or performs the verification successfully, the packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936]. UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet, the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of the UDP and LISP headers. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 15] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1, the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header contain a Nonce. See Section 10.1 for details. Both N- and V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as having a Nonce value present. L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second 32 bits of the LISP header are in use. x 1 x x 0 x x x +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Locator-Status-Bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP- encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See Section 10.1 for details. V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 13.3 for more details. This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this case as: 0 x 0 1 x x x x +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more details. When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format of the LISP header would look like this: Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 16] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 x x x x 1 x x x +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance ID | LSBs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ R: The R-bit is a Reserved bit for future use. It MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information. LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are required to generate different nonces when sending to different destinations. However, the same nonce can be used for a period of time when encapsulating to the same ETR. The nonce is also used when the E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the other side when packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but the N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. See Section 10.1 for more details. LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry). The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'. When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 17] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field. o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re- encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 18] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6 and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. An ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/ PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. 6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to- RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to the corresponding RLOC network attachment point. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the EID is done to the map-cache. When the lookup succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from the map- cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location. If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using the LISP control-plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The mapping is then stored in the local map-cache to forward subsequent packets addressed to the same EID-prefix. The map-cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based on the associated Time to live. In addition, entries can be updated with more current information, see Section 13 for further information Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 19] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 on this. Finally, the map-cache also contains reachability information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see Section 10 for the specific mechanisms. 7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed the path MTU between the ITR and ETR. It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms. Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR also apply to a TE-ITR. 7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows: 1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header lengths. 2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any intermediate routers to fragment the packet. 3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the effective MTU can be met. That is, L =3D S + H. When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then prepended to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR. When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 20] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR. This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/ Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S is (L - H). When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR. This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500. 7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]: 1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR. 2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message to the ITR. The ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry. 3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Unreachable/ Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source. The packet size advertised by the ITR in the ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation- Needed message is the effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation length. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 21] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets. 8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level. For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization. For these and other scenarios where segregation is needed, Instance IDs are used. An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An ITR that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set to 1. When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table to use for the inner destination EID lookup. For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a 24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case details. The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That means the control-plane can store more instances than a given data-plane can use. Multiple data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as the low-order 24 bits don't overlap among xTRs. 9. Routing Locator Selection Both the client-side and server-side MAY need control over the selection of RLOCs for conversations between them. This control is achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID- to-RLOC Map-Reply messages. Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request messages. The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the controls that are available: o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 22] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load- splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the list are unreachable. o The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list. In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is spread across the subset list. Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the client-side determining load distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable. o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer- header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large. o A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few seconds, pending verification. Verification is performed by sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP source address) of the received encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map- Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 23] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that stored in the mapping database system provides reachability information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section. 10. Routing Locator Reachability Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently defined: 1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an RLOC. 2. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices in treating these conditions [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering]. 3. When an ITR participates in the routing protocol that operates in the underlay routing system, it can determine that an RLOC is down when no Routing Information Base (RIB) entry exists that matches the RLOC IP address. 4. An ITR MAY receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a non-LISP-capable site. 5. An ITR MAY receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the ITR. 6. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up. 7. An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 24] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site IGP as follows: o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default route into the site IGP. o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its default route will either time out or be withdrawn. Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets for them. RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0 to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for the packets they encapsulate. When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that particular EID-Prefix. Refer to Section 19 for security related issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits. When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32 address is configured on a loopback interface. When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map- Replies. However, using this approach is unreliable because many network operators turn off generation of ICMP Destination Unreachable messages. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 25] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable message, it MAY originate its own ICMP Destination Unreachable message destined for the host that originated the data packet the ITR encapsulated. Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the RIB to see if a locator address from a Locator-Set in a mapping entry matches a prefix. If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default- Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the Locator even though the Locator-Status-Bits indicate that the Locator is up. In this case, the path from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the Locator is not available. More details are in [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications]. Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator, and if a Map- Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined. Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control messages originated by Tunnel Routers for active flows, so Locators are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised. This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When a Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply with Priority 255. The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate- limited. Locator reachability testing is never done with data packets, since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end sessions. When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable. Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine reachability. 10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different sites, a data-plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data packet. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 26] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is forwarded as normal. When the ETR next sends a data packet to the ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set and E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the path to and from the ETR is up. The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is variable and is a choice left for the implementation. If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision MAY be overridden by other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for that EID-Prefix. Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce mechanism to operate. The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting. However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request packets. This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an ITR that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic. The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC- probe Map-Reply message. Note other Locator Reachability mechanisms can be used to compliment or even override the echo nonce algorithm. See the next section for an example of control-plane probing. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 27] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 10.2. RLOC-Probing Algorithm RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply messages is used for RLOC-Probing. RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator address from one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to the mapping database system as one would when soliciting mapping data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR MAY include a mapping data record for its own database mapping information that contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval. When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping data for the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. This provides the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping entries. There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC-Probing. The greatest benefit of RLOC-Probing is that it can handle many failure scenarios allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific Locator is reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT) estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times is very small. 11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID- Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site. When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 28] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data header. It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub- ranges of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem introduced by the LISP architecture. The problem exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its reachability upstream. 12. Routing Locator Hashing When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message that is stored in the map-cache of a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values for each locator address. When more than one best Priority Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against the corresponding Locators. The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping: 1. Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional 5-tuple hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash includes the source and destination addresses; source and destination TCP, UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers; and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site. When a packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and destination addresses only from the header are used to compute the hash. 2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping. 3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the Locator-Set. Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 29] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash function on the inner header, as described above. Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP encapsulation. 13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to- date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of which ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, it is desirable to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently communicating with the ETR site using such mappings. When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end of a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings. We assume that new mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list. So, some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old mapping that is used until they time out. When an ITR has only an old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply ignores them. However, this can only happen for locator addresses that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in the existing Locator-Set. When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, to maintain lexicographic order, the SMR procedure in Section 13.2 is used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the new Locator-Status-Bit mappings. When a Locator record is removed from a Locator-Set, ITRs that have the mapping cached will not use the removed Locator because the xTRs will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0. So, even if the Locator is in the list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed Locator. If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 30] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings can be efficiently packed. We propose here three approaches for Locator-Set compaction: one operational mechanism and two protocol mechanisms. The operational approach uses a clock sweep method. The protocol approaches use the concept of Solicit-Map-Requests and Map-Versioning. 13.1. Clock Sweep The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached. The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours. So, there is a 24-hour window to time out old mappings. The following clock sweep procedure is used: 1. 24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock sweep window. 2. During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records. The TTL for these mappings is set to 1 hour. 3. 24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out, and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour. During this 1-hour window, the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set to 1 minute. 4. At the end of the 1-hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply messages with the new (changed) mapping records. So, any active caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not cached, or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached. The new mappings are cached with a TTL equal to the TTL in the Map-Reply. 13.2. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update the mappings they have cached. Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their mappings updated. As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests (called an SMR message) from those sites to which it has been sending Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 31] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 encapsulated data for the last minute. In particular, an ETR will send an SMR to an ITR to which it has recently sent encapsulated data. This can only occur when both ITR and ETR functionality reside in the same router. An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message. An ITR or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message. Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder MUST rate-limit these messages. Rate-limiting can be implemented as a global rate- limiter or one rate-limiter per SMR destination. The following procedure shows how an SMR exchange occurs when a site is doing Locator-Set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping: 1. When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ETRs at the site begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each Locator in each Map-Cache entry the ETR caches. 2. A remote ITR that receives the SMR message will schedule sending a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR message or to the mapping database system. A newly allocated random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one copied from the SMR message. If the source Locator is the only Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to accept the Map-Request. 3. The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping. When Map-Versioning as described in Section 13.3 is used, an SMR sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date database mapping. 4. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the SMR-invoked Map-Request. The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate- limited. This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion. 5. The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record the fact that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new mapping data in the Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets going to the remote site. The ETR then stops sending SMR messages. For security reasons, an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map- Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 32] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified. If an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map- Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database system. Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the authoritative source of the mapping data. When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it may not send an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to obtain a Map-Cache entry. 13.3. Database Map-Versioning When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set. An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in Section 13.2 occurs. An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map- Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map- Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one of the ETRs for the source site. A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of 0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers. A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 33] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map- Version Number. See [RFC6834] for a more detailed analysis and description of Database Map-Versioning. 14. Multicast Considerations A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates, determine where the receivers are located. In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and a Routing Locator. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID. The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address), prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means to determine the group address mapping. With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR prepends its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header. Just like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address. This source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator address, MUST be globally routable. There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay with support from the Mapping System. See [RFC6831] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast], respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and [RFC6832]. 15. Router Performance Considerations LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". A few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement LISP: o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer destination address may not be the address of the router. This Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 34] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating that control-plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data- plane. o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action. o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings. For performance issues related to map-cache management, see Section 19. 16. Mobility Considerations There are several kinds of mobility, of which only some might be of concern to LISP. Essentially, they are as follows. 16.1. Slow Mobility A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes upstream providers. Changes in EID-to-RLOC mappings for sites are expected to be handled by configuration, outside of LISP. An individual endpoint wishes to move but is not concerned about maintaining session continuity. Renumbering is involved. LISP can help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces used by its ISPs [RFC4984]. 16.2. Fast Mobility Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively rapidly, changing its IP-layer network attachment point. Maintenance of session continuity is a goal. This is where the Mobile IPv4 [RFC5944] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used and Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 35] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored, such as the mechanisms in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] when the EID moves but the RLOC is in the network infrastructure. In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information. When a packet arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-to-RLOC mapping and use that mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID. It can do this after performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new network location does have an internal route to that endpoint. However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node assigned the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised. Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which all routing information is disseminated before packets can be forwarded. In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future use, we are moving to an environment where some information may have to be obtained after packets are in flight. Modifications to IP mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of the overall system. Anything that decreases the number of new EID- to-RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the validity of an EID-to-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful. In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly changing xTRs. A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large as a whole site. This is different from site mobility in that it is fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs. However, the mechanisms are the same, and there is no new overhead in LISP. A map request for any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile prefix. If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be useful to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic updates of the database. The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be explored further. Specific improvements to the entire system will depend on the details of mapping mechanisms. Mapping mechanisms should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for mobile nodes. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] for more recent mechanisms which can provide near-zero packet loss during handoffs. 16.3. LISP Mobile Node Mobility A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions and acting as a simple ITR/ETR. By doing this, such a "LISP mobile node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are not advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 36] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 system. These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node. Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and RLOC are co-located in the roaming node. 17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario. For a more detailed network design deployment recommendation, refer to [RFC7215]. There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized versus distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating Tunneling. When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching, the following issues SHOULD be considered: o Are the xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all the memories of each router? A centralized cache is when an ITR keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to. The packet takes a direct path to the destination Locator. A distributed cache is when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel Routers (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries for the EIDs it is encapsulating to. So, the packet takes a path through RTRs that have a different set of cache entries. o Should management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a few xTRs, just enough for redundancy? o In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load, since caches are built and stored dynamically. On the other hand, using more ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to- RLOC mappings need to be explicitly configured. When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, the following issues SHOULD be considered: o Flat tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between the source site and destination site. This generally offers better paths between sources and destinations with a single encapsulation path. o Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again further encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to perform Traffic Engineering. When doing VPN-based tunneling, the site has some control, since the site is prepending a new Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 37] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 encapsulation header. In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site MAY have control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control. Recursive Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but with the benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that have more resources available. o The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only require one encapsulation header. So, if a packet needs to be re- routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re- Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC. The next sub-sections will examine where xTRs and RTRs can reside in the network. 17.1. First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs By locating xTRs close to hosts, the EID-Prefix set is at the granularity of an IP subnet. So, at the expense of more EID-Prefix- to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each xTR can remain relatively small. But caches always depend on the number of non- aggregated EID destination flows active through these xTRs. With more xTRs doing encapsulation, the increase in control traffic grows as well: since the EID granularity is greater, more Map- Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers. The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network have better price-memory ratios than their core router counterparts. Memory is typically less expensive in these devices, and fewer routes are stored (only IGP routes). These devices tend to have excess capacity, both for forwarding and routing states. LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches. These devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports facing the Internet. Spare capacity is also often available in these devices. 17.2. Border/Edge xTRs Using Customer Edge (CE) routers for xTR placement allows the EID space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of RLOCs assigned to the CE-based xTRs for that site. This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop xTR scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management touch points is reduced, allowing better scaling. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 38] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 One disadvantage is that fewer network resources are used to reach host endpoints, thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain and creating network choke points at the CE xTR. Note that more than one CE xTR at a site can be configured with the same IP address. In this case, an RLOC is an anycast address. This allows resilience between the CE xTRs. That is, if a CE xTR fails, traffic is automatically routed to the other xTRs using the same anycast address. However, this comes with the disadvantage where the site cannot control the entrance point when the anycast route is advertised out from all border routers. Another disadvantage of using anycast Locators is the limited advertisement scope of /32 (or /128 for IPv6) routes. 17.3. ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs The use of ISP PE routers as xTRs is not the typical deployment scenario envisioned in this specification. This section attempts to capture some of the reasoning behind this preference for implementing LISP on CE routers. The use of ISP PE routers for xTR placement gives an ISP, rather than a site, control over the location of the ETRs. That is, the ISP can decide whether the xTRs are in the destination site (in either CE xTRs or last-hop xTRs within a site) or at other PE edges. The advantage of this case is that two encapsulation headers can be avoided. By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsulation path to the destination end site. An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over where its packets flow or over the RLOCs used. Other disadvantages include difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between CE and PE routers. As mentioned in earlier sections, a combination of these scenarios is possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead; if both site and provider want control, then Recursive or Re-Encapsulating Tunnels are used. 17.4. LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs LISP routers can be deployed behind Network Address Translator (NAT) devices to provide the same set of packet services hosts have today when they are addressed out of private address space. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 39] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 It is important to note that a locator address in any LISP control message MUST be a routable address and therefore [RFC1918] addresses SHOULD only be presence when running in a local environment. When a LISP xTR is configured with private RLOC addresses and resides behind a NAT device and desires to communicate on the Internet, the private addresses MUST be used only in the outer IP header so the NAT device can translate properly. Otherwise, EID addresses MUST be translated before encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs are not in use. Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation functions could be co- located in the same device. 17.5. Packets Egressing a LISP Site When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second. This second ITR's cache MAY not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping entries as the first. If this second ITR does not have these mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved from the mapping system. The retrieval of these messages may increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system. 18. Traceroute Considerations When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it to see the entire path. Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR to the ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single hop. However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the user can see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP host to a destination LISP host: Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs): source host ---> first hop ... next hop ---> ITR Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs): ITR ---> next hop ... next hop ---> ETR Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs): ETR ---> next hop ... last hop ---> destination host For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned in the normal manner as they are today. The ITR performs a TTL decrement and tests for 0 before encapsulating. Therefore, the ITR's hop is seen by the traceroute source as having an EID address (the address of the site-facing interface). Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 40] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer header, so the destinations of the ICMP messages are the ITR RLOC address and the source RLOC address of the encapsulated traceroute packet. The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to inspect the traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to the address of the traceroute client and also retain the core router IP address in the ICMP message. This is so the traceroute client can display the core router address (the RLOC address) in the traceroute output. The ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to the TTL decrement to 0, as the previous core routers did. For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent into the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't the final destination. If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on the path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the source EID of the traceroute client. The ICMP message will be encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be delivered to the host. 18.1. IPv6 Traceroute IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above, since the entire traceroute data packet is included in the ICMP Time Exceeded message payload. Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special attention to forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute source. 18.2. IPv4 Traceroute For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure, since IPv4 ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and 8 octets that follow the IP header. Therefore, when a core router sends an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in the ICMP payload is the encapsulated header it prepended, followed by a UDP header. The original invoking IP header, and therefore the identity of the traceroute source, is lost. The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache traceroute IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding IPv4 Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR. The ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers of traceroute packets. It will select a 16-bit number as a key to find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received. When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the 16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 41] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload, thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the traceroute source. The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute destination). The signature of a traceroute packet comes in two forms. The first form is encoded as a UDP message where the destination port is inspected for a range of values. The second form is encoded as an ICMP message where the IP identification field is inspected for a well-known value. 18.3. Traceroute Using Mixed Locators When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, one cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute. Segment 2 of the traceroute cannot be conveyed to the traceroute source, since it is expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format for the type of traceroute it originated. Therefore, in this case, segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop. All the ITR has to do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer, encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated using an RLOC from a different address family. This will cause no TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR. 19. Security Considerations Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833]. A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what follows we provide a summary. The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR can learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping into its map-cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially overloading it. The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC data- plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce- Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 42] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate such mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable. This can be used also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim of overload it. Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map- versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them. Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms. In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the control-plane. 20. Network Management Considerations Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835]. 21. IANA Considerations This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. 21.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP data-plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as follows: lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets 22. References 22.1. Normative References Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 43] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 (work in progress), December 2017. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, . [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, . [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, . [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, . [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, . [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August 2006, . [RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised", RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010, . Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 44] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July 2011, . [RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833, DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016, . [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, . 22.2. Informative References [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016, . [CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed", 1999, . [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-01 (work in progress), November 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in progress), April 2015. [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 (work in progress), October 2017. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 45] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-01 (work in progress), November 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 (work in progress), October 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast", draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07 (work in progress), November 2017. [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-01 (work in progress), November 2017. [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering] Gont, F., Gont, G., and C. Pignataro, "Recommendations for filtering ICMP messages", draft-ietf-opsec-icmp- filtering-04 (work in progress), July 2013. [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 (work in progress), January 2009. [LISA96] Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin, "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996. [OPENLISP] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, . [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, . Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 46] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February 2001, . [RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232, January 2002, . [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, . [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005, . [RFC4866] Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866, DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007, . [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, . [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 2013, . [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, . [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, . Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 47] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 [RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835, DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013, . [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, . [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, . [RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052, DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013, . [RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo- Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April 2014, . [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, . [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, February 2017, . [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, . [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, May 2017, . Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 48] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 Appendix A. Acknowledgments An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value to the LISP authors. A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a practical and incremental transition for the Internet. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal. They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin, Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu, Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils, Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez. This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF. An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working group document that became this RFC. 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 documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs. Appendix B. Document Change Log [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 49] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 o Posted January 2018. o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during encapsulation and decapsulation. o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section from various commenters. o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section. o More editorial changes. o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section. B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 o Posted January 2018. o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms. o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant. o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi Iannone. o Ran IDNITs on the document. B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 o Posted November 2017. o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918] addresses. B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 o Posted October 2017. o Put RTR definition before it is used. 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 hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs". o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 50] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies. o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2. o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID. o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node. o Clarify when private addreses can be used. B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 o Posted August 2017. o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR. B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 o Posted July 2017. o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200. o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936. B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 o Posted May 2017. o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA Considerations section to RFC6833bis. B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 o Posted April 2017. o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez. B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 o Posted March 2017. o Include references to new RFCs published. o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis. o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section. Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 51] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 o Remove references to "experimental". B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 o Posted December 2016. o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp -rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made. Authors' Addresses Dino Farinacci Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: farinacci@gmail.com Vince Fuller Cisco Systems Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com Dave Meyer Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net Darrel Lewis Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA EMail: darlewis@cisco.com Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 52] =0C Internet-Draft LISP January 2018 Albert Cabellos UPC/BarcelonaTech Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3 Barcelona, Catalunya Spain EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu Farinacci, et al. Expires July 30, 2018 [Page 53] --Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii --Apple-Mail=_C7FC98C2-EDDC-4BAA-A565-E59514828F56-- From nobody Sun Jan 28 17:57:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF9C1314DD for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:57:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 dfj3OIcgLbfK for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yb0-x22f.google.com (mail-yb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22f]) (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 23D921314B7 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 65so2205929ybz.6 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:57:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tfb/AIBdxUPKWztRNUQGzZKRgd4lYIH7hKBcv/2u7hs=; b=NBNXlE1bHlrZ7XVmZ4gQFIzkdTIeBmVFsHjDV3bnxKQCU8rFBhXzeL+CXHA/kWquNS 6tDVHl5rzy1SvIawvQFhk6qsSXy8laBe0UvjkRHe+zl336uVqXVZB/2uAwiJP0+f1tLh /5VDRXCyrM8mIQn9lHGuf3wGfSRKKOPIQ614Ow55saCD/sxbRs1mrPr5xBYK11IUMIaF ZqznyXDYj9CcBDU0O2r0XwWo82/BcaDE0giwalPMIna+WIuv2dxrpIvL1ara4Csl2aQT I5bCa1XnIq5StkYIStVFvO9K1cTzEH0sqw0Y1XqzgiiLrgIG2LPhQf2VoEpHojZrazE/ SODg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tfb/AIBdxUPKWztRNUQGzZKRgd4lYIH7hKBcv/2u7hs=; b=Guc8DJ4TYwvluryDJyQ+RRESiu2KhPijY7VQtfdgREh088yQHjGeMEnRgNdj9JF0DO gbi/f2o78bI12KIFxqmamXjYj1qXA9R2v1AB1L+04kfUj8tiuyDO+wps/jTaoA84LyZx K92JvHQM3h4TTcjr1i6BM82DjWHWjpn4+s3AXhRdqpsPgFg/iL3YoEqnPmdvZlh+FIzp AdfvmUBdvtCZkPAXCXeddHuQzCOV8QtF6IeMdx9wpNhe7pcVc99UVprybqWVdH1cVQtG IhKJLvkJTq0YX75zqZrUejXma8A7lfrvZ2WIl3nTUC6yt7mwqk9YNzYK8AMLGhCcEufl XjnA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytftGUAZ9zYIGI8M6gSPlJYs5gbBR9E2FzL/n4IuiwGos9Zq6jyP LYjiglKYsWg+SO0V20HTc3Q4Y8rOf5aBShmNcUk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225ME9K1i05FvfS4gloA8PK0uVr5SLT/5lCIknBDnuF9qmSoAKP4A0QYH+D6CLHci+5jYU4/TVeTds6HRetJqMY= X-Received: by 10.37.104.72 with SMTP id d69mr8176809ybc.281.1517191022186; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:57:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.16.69 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:57:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> From: Albert Cabellos Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 02:57:01 +0100 Message-ID: To: Dino Farinacci Cc: Padma Pillay-Esnault , Albert Cabellos , Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c059aef17df0563e08f6b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 01:57:06 -0000 --f403045c059aef17df0563e08f6b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all Thanks for all the comments, from my understanding of this thread the following list of items *seem* to have rough consensus (all except B - change definitions for EID and RLOC). Joel, Luigi->How should we proceed now? Albert --- A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be validated by experts): When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field. o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header. When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below. o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for traceroute packets. D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating tha= t the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (priorities and weights), t= he remaining text should go to an OAM document. E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D consider= ing the following changes: * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote= : > Thanks for the detail review Padma. A new update to -09 is enclosed with = a > diff file. I will wait until next week to post. > > I have reflected all of your comments and most of Luigi=E2=80=99s comment= s. The > only issues open are: > > (1) Section movement from RFC6830 to RFC6833. > > (2) If an OAM document is needed. > > Waiting for more working group concensus on this. > > > Dear Dino and Albert > > > > The doc reads well. > > Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on > the list > > > > Page 4 > > "Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate = a > connection initiation attempt by an EID." > > PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not > initiate anything. Suggest something like this. > > > > "Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate = a > connection initiation attempt by the end system (represented by an EID)= =E2=80=9D > > Fixed. Put in your suggestion. > > > Page 6 > > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's > "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet must have the sam= e > properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among > other things, that it must be globally unique. > > > > PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below > > > > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's > "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the sam= e > properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among > other things, that it MUST be globally unique. > > Changed. > > > Page 8 > > An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. > > PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping entr= y > where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC. > > I changed to =E2=80=9Czero or more RLOCs.=E2=80=9D. > > > Page 8 > > When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not > create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. > > > > PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Security > Considerations section as this is an exploit possibility. > > I have removed the sentence. Because it actually is not true. If you use > different mapping systems and circuitious forwarding occurs. The packet > travels only until its TTL reaches 0. Using the rules for copy inner to > outer and outer to inner during RTR re-encapsulation applies. > > > Page 13 > > "gleaned" mapping > > > > PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D in the definition= section. > > Changed. > > > Page 17 > > "The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are > encrypted." > > > > PPE 6: Nit - Typo "encapsualted" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulated" > > Fixed. > > > > > Page 20 > > "When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the map-cach= e > is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location." > > > > PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for consistenc= y > with rest of document. > > Thanks. Done. > > > > > Page 23 > > "The server-side sets a Weight of 0..." > > PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero=E2=80=9D= . > > Changed. > > > Page 23 > > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the > client determining load distribution." > > > > PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side" > > > > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the > client-side determining load distribution.=E2=80=9D > > Done. > > > Page 24 > > When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer > occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches > > the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1] This "gleaning" mechanism > is OPTIONAL. > > > > PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution. Changes > in the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache fast > =E2=80=A6however this text make it sound that this is not an option after= first > packet. > > It is an option when the ETR has no mapping to return packets. Once a > mapping is cache, there is no point to glean since the mapping system > verified the information the same as in the map-cache. > > > > > Page 25 > > "Note that trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable, but neither is > ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow curren= t > best practices in treating these conditions." > > > > PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible. > > Added draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering. > > > Page 25 > > "An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine > that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exist= s > that matches the RLOC IP address." > > > > PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entry? We > are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the protocol= . > > Yes, we can generalize this. I changed text. > > > Page 38 > > "For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer t= o > [RFC7215]." > > > > PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> =E2=80=9Cnetwork" > > Changed. > > > Page 40 > > "By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it ca= n > choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate fo= r > a new encapsuluation path to the destination end site." > > > > PPE 14: Nit Typo "encapsuluation" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulation" > > Changed. > > > Page 43 > > "If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by > redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially overloading > it." > > > > > PPE 15: Nit typo "victim;s" -> =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80=99s=E2=80=9D > > Changed. > > Dino > > > > > > > > > > > > > --f403045c059aef17df0563e08f6b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all

Thanks for all the comments, fro= m my understanding of this thread the following list of items *seem* to hav= e rough consensus (all except B - change definitions for EID and RLOC).

Joel, Luigi->How should we proceed now?
=
Albert

---

A.- Remove= definitions of PA and PI

C.- In section 5.3, chan= ge the description of the encap/decap operation concerning how to deal with= ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be validated by experts):

When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

o=C2=A0 The outer-header 'Time to Live' field= (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from = the inner-header 'Time to Live' field.

<= /div>
o=C2=A0 The outer-header 'Differentiated Service= s Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in th= e case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Tra= ffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the exception liste= d below.

o=C2=A0 The = 9;Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IP= v6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to av= oid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST = copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer heade= r. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripp= ed outer header to the new outer header.

<= /div>
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
=
=C2=A0o=C2=A0 The inner-header 'Time to Liv= e' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be = copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to= Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the = inner header.=C2=A0 Failing to perform this check can cause the Time to Liv= e of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycle= s.=C2=A0 This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, whe= n a packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
<= div>

o=C2=A0 The inner-header 'Differen= tiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class'= ; field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP f= ield ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the e= xception listed below.

=
o= =C2=A0 The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 a= nd 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment = in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the &#= 39;ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is = '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsul= ation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer heade= r to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet beyond t= he ETR.=C2=A0 These requirements preserve CE indications when a packet that= uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked with a CE indication d= ue to congestion between the tunnel endpoints.

<= /div>
Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and cho= oses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that = the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer head= er minus 1.

Copying the = Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the distance th= e host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importantly, it prov= ides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a loop of con= catenated tunnels due to misconfiguration.=C2=A0 See Section 18.3 for TTL e= xception handling for traceroute packets.

=
D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 = stating that the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache= (priorities and weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document.=

E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator= Reachability=E2=80=9D considering the following changes:
<= div>
*=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Keep bullet point 1 (examine L= SB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Echo-Nonce
*=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3= (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a res= ponse) and RLOC probing

F.- Move Solicit-Map= -Request to 6833bis

G.- Move secti= ons 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Considerations), 18 (Tr= aceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document

On Fri, Jan 26, = 2018 at 8:20 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrot= e:
Thanks for the detail review Padma. A = new update to -09 is enclosed with a diff file. I will wait until next week= to post.

I have reflected all of your comments and most of Luigi=E2=80=99s comments.= The only issues open are:

(1) Section movement from RFC6830 to RFC6833.

(2) If an OAM document is needed.

Waiting for more working group concensus on this.

> Dear Dino and Albert
>
> The doc reads well.
> Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on = the list
>
> Page 4
> "Client-side:=C2=A0 Client-side is a term used in this document t= o indicate a connection initiation attempt by an EID."
> PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not in= itiate anything. Suggest something like this.
>
> "Client-side:=C2=A0 Client-side is a term used in this doc= ument to indicate a connection initiation attempt by the end system (repres= ented by an EID)=E2=80=9D

Fixed. Put in your suggestion.

> Page 6
> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host&= #39;s "local" IP address.=C2=A0 An EID used on the public Interne= t must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner= ; this means, among other things, that it must be globally unique.
>
> PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion be= low
>
> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host&= #39;s "local" IP address.=C2=A0 An EID used on the public Interne= t MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner= ; this means, among other things, that it MUST be globally unique.

Changed.

> Page 8
> An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
> PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping ent= ry where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC.

I changed to =E2=80=9Czero or more RLOCs.=E2=80=9D.

> Page 8
> When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to no= t create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.
>
> PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Secu= rity Considerations section as this is an exploit possibility.

I have removed the sentence. Because it actually is not true. If you= use different mapping systems and circuitious forwarding occurs. The packe= t travels only until its TTL reaches 0. Using the rules for copy inner to o= uter and outer to inner during RTR re-encapsulation applies.

> Page 13
> "gleaned" mapping
>
> PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D in the definitio= n section.

Changed.

> Page 17
> "The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are= encrypted."
>
> PPE 6: Nit - Typo "encapsualted" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulated= "

Fixed.

>
> Page 20
> "When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set=C2=A0 retrieved from t= he map-cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological locati= on."
>
> PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for= consistency with rest of document.

Thanks. Done.

>
> Page 23
> "The server-side sets a Weight of 0..."
> PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero=E2= =80=9D.

Changed.

> Page 23
> "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and t= he client determining load=C2=A0 distribution."
>
> PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side"
>
> "Control is shared by the server- side determining the lis= t and the client-side determining load distribution.=E2=80=9D

Done.

> Page 24
> When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occ= urs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches
> the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1]=C2=A0 =C2=A0This "glea= ning" mechanism is OPTIONAL.
>
> PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution.=C2=A0 Ch= anges in the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache f= ast =E2=80=A6however this text make it sound that this is not an option aft= er first packet.

It is an option when the ETR has no mapping to return packets. Once = a mapping is cache, there is no point to glean since the mapping system ver= ified the information the same as in the map-cache.

>
> Page 25
> "Note that trusting ICMP messages may=C2=A0 not be desirable, but= neither is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to fol= low current best practices in treating these conditions."
>
> PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible.

Added draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering.

> Page 25
> "An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determ= ine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exi= sts that matches the RLOC IP address."
>
> PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entr= y? We are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the prot= ocol.

Yes, we can generalize this. I changed text.

> Page 38
> "For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, r= efer to [RFC7215]."
>
> PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> =E2=80=9Cnetwork"

Changed.

> Page 40
> "By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate,= it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsul= ate for a new encapsuluation path to the destination end site."
>
> PPE 14: Nit Typo "encapsuluation" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulati= on"

Changed.

> Page 43
> "If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attac= k by redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially overload= ing it."
>

> PPE 15: Nit=C2=A0 typo "victim;s" -> =E2=80=9Cvict= im=E2=80=99s=E2=80=9D

Changed.

Dino


=C2=A0 =C2=A0










--f403045c059aef17df0563e08f6b-- From nobody Sun Jan 28 19:08:07 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C153131550 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:08:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Am8TCGPmzDmK for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:08:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (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 91A0F131547 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:08:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 23so3688688pfp.3 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:08:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pbTcc72Jxgy1U3oPdS1Hd5jTF+gdd8Q3hmPwAJUDW8k=; b=HF1LwEIkjKE1n7zOP3HnulBWjFc15BaDVpJ1A7PF5hKPmO2afD4QuTx3IR4M9anGan +4ua384HzT4yjR7RL+7UUPYqOnZE28DEQlhkIhEu3otVrn82dtFhfuE6eo5qYLVKV4Q5 AeKVLYwVGY+IreKJBRJGPr8owKr//dIw60CR4VIQVxoO03QBP0tQIzpYqoAN/arhuthU bGqiufQub8SZj62gX25bLL3URu+hzP6roGsfvjiytfQCGK9SPtSnSFhRoV0yNIF4tHkq QULmyxfckBYj6gqXO0nvlx8DjXkFlzpb8koWilHSbVOcMt8Ghk7KA4xWMr4W2lBReMme WVXQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pbTcc72Jxgy1U3oPdS1Hd5jTF+gdd8Q3hmPwAJUDW8k=; b=rBRVQr9zHP+39zxYM9Kcexbbj8sGl9Vvoh/OiFZcxTK0mkkAdqNuoZpq0pthtRnlY8 pcA6y/sxf6wKeEqLLOgM2ELHUJsVUzee++Mlk4vO0UGhjt/7CJ1CbkxGLUejs37ZgBjM IlJC+nRjo+0sSeK6NlQMvdgR0iIon3oY10NLRXV5LGDcnN52p0q/ptonsqFL3CR5vuvB Qtp1VgRHTrp3OBzw/lRgpufMFeUNsq6Xa8r7PUK+Nl8TPbMUgVs8w+Pkte+q2F4MskSE wjTLXqumJmjPdqIE3gt7+KtaA9XA5Tprqcx71VsFDgta+j2SC3+9VJ53yIcuW7FVcu4D x8Zg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytepANa3q1MNXS1niIJ6lTp6Zuncgg0OQpiX6toW67D3FPcim0ch 08GSDX/jTn+vyD1VeQjo7ORaY92v X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226MffhxysyzCJGwDVuimNFekGzQq2HVGwvUBSrgL+tV3zbfDykgMZilvOP3wmJwroiCycSf5g== X-Received: by 10.98.200.153 with SMTP id i25mr25114951pfk.241.1517195281963; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:08:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:4564:f5d7:a123:b858? ([2603:3024:151c:55f0:4564:f5d7:a123:b858]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z9sm15593152pgc.5.2018.01.28.19.08.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:08:00 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F38C400B-FEE3-400C-96FA-169EDF67EE2E Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15D60) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:07:59 -0800 Cc: Padma Pillay-Esnault , Albert Cabellos , Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <784FC076-8BA8-42E4-9891-2685A3DE40F5@gmail.com> References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> To: Albert Cabellos Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 03:08:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail-F38C400B-FEE3-400C-96FA-169EDF67EE2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Note A and C are addressed in the -09 revision I sent out in Friday.=20 Dino > On Jan 28, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Albert Cabellos w= rote: >=20 > Hi all >=20 > Thanks for all the comments, from my understanding of this thread the foll= owing list of items *seem* to have rough consensus (all except B - change de= finitions for EID and RLOC). >=20 > Joel, Luigi->How should we proceed now? >=20 > Albert >=20 > --- >=20 > A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI >=20 > C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap operation co= ncerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to be validat= ed by experts): >=20 > When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >=20 > o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the cas= e of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field. >=20 > o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or t= he 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inn= er-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considerin= g the exception listed below. >=20 > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the= IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid di= scarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy th= e 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. Re-encapsulat= ion MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the ne= w outer header. >=20 > When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >=20 > o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the ca= se of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to Live' field, whe= n the Time to Live value of the outer header is less than the Time to Live v= alue of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the Time t= o Live of the inner header to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation c= ycles. This check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a= packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. >=20 > o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field (or t= he 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the out= er-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considerin= g the exception listed below. >=20 > o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the= IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order to avoid di= scarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a c= ongestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion Experience= d (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field fr= om the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to f= orward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE indication= s when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes marked wit= h a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpoints. >=20 > Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate= after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the new outer header wi= ll carry the same Time to Live as the old outer header minus 1. >=20 > Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves th= e distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more importan= tly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the event there is a l= oop of concatenated tunnels due to misconfiguration. See Section 18.3 for T= TL exception handling for traceroute packets. >=20 > D.- Simplify section =E2=80=98Router Locator Selection=E2=80=99 stating th= at the data-plane MUST follow what=C2=B4s stored in the map-cache (prioritie= s and weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document. >=20 > E.- Rewrite Section =E2=80=9CRouting Locator Reachability=E2=80=9D conside= ring the following changes: >=20 > * Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a data-packet) and Ec= ho-Nonce > * Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hin= ts from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response)= and RLOC probing >=20 > F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis >=20 > G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Consider= ations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document >=20 >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Dino Farinacci wro= te: >> Thanks for the detail review Padma. A new update to -09 is enclosed with a= diff file. I will wait until next week to post. >>=20 >> I have reflected all of your comments and most of Luigi=E2=80=99s comment= s. The only issues open are: >>=20 >> (1) Section movement from RFC6830 to RFC6833. >>=20 >> (2) If an OAM document is needed. >>=20 >> Waiting for more working group concensus on this. >>=20 >> > Dear Dino and Albert >> > >> > The doc reads well. >> > Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on t= he list >> > >> > Page 4 >> > "Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a= connection initiation attempt by an EID." >> > PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not ini= tiate anything. Suggest something like this. >> > >> > "Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a= connection initiation attempt by the end system (represented by an EID)=E2=80= =9D >>=20 >> Fixed. Put in your suggestion. >>=20 >> > Page 6 >> > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's= "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet must have the same p= roperties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among oth= er things, that it must be globally unique. >> > >> > PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below >> > >> > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's= "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the same p= roperties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among oth= er things, that it MUST be globally unique. >>=20 >> Changed. >>=20 >> > Page 8 >> > An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. >> > PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping entr= y where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC. >>=20 >> I changed to =E2=80=9Czero or more RLOCs.=E2=80=9D. >>=20 >> > Page 8 >> > When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not= create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. >> > >> > PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Security Consid= erations section as this is an exploit possibility. >>=20 >> I have removed the sentence. Because it actually is not true. If you use d= ifferent mapping systems and circuitious forwarding occurs. The packet trave= ls only until its TTL reaches 0. Using the rules for copy inner to outer and= outer to inner during RTR re-encapsulation applies. >>=20 >> > Page 13 >> > "gleaned" mapping >> > >> > PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D in the definition= section. >>=20 >> Changed. >>=20 >> > Page 17 >> > "The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are encry= pted." >> > >> > PPE 6: Nit - Typo "encapsualted" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulated" >>=20 >> Fixed. >>=20 >> > >> > Page 20 >> > "When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the map-cach= e is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location." >> > >> > PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for consistenc= y with rest of document. >>=20 >> Thanks. Done. >>=20 >> > >> > Page 23 >> > "The server-side sets a Weight of 0..." >> > PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero=E2=80=9D= . >>=20 >> Changed. >>=20 >> > Page 23 >> > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the cli= ent determining load distribution." >> > >> > PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side" >> > >> > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the cli= ent-side determining load distribution.=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> Done. >>=20 >> > Page 24 >> > When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occu= rs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches >> > the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1] This "gleaning" mechanism i= s OPTIONAL. >> > >> > PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution. Changes i= n the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache fast =E2=80= =A6however this text make it sound that this is not an option after first pa= cket. >>=20 >> It is an option when the ETR has no mapping to return packets. Once a map= ping is cache, there is no point to glean since the mapping system verified t= he information the same as in the map-cache. >>=20 >> > >> > Page 25 >> > "Note that trusting ICMP messages may not be desirable, but neither is= ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow current b= est practices in treating these conditions." >> > >> > PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible. >>=20 >> Added draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering. >>=20 >> > Page 25 >> > "An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine th= at an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exists tha= t matches the RLOC IP address." >> > >> > PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entry? We= are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the protocol. >>=20 >> Yes, we can generalize this. I changed text. >>=20 >> > Page 38 >> > "For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer t= o [RFC7215]." >> > >> > PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> =E2=80=9Cnetwork" >>=20 >> Changed. >>=20 >> > Page 40 >> > "By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it ca= n choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for= a new encapsuluation path to the destination end site." >> > >> > PPE 14: Nit Typo "encapsuluation" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulation" >>=20 >> Changed. >>=20 >> > Page 43 >> > "If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by r= edirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially overloading it.= " >> > >>=20 >> > PPE 15: Nit typo "victim;s" -> =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80=99s=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> Changed. >>=20 >> Dino >>=20 >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-F38C400B-FEE3-400C-96FA-169EDF67EE2E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Note A and C are addressed i= n the -09 revision I sent out in Friday. 

Dino=

On Jan 28, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Albert Cabellos <albert.cabellos@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all

Thanks for all the comments, from my understanding of this thread t= he following list of items *seem* to have rough consensus (all except B - ch= ange definitions for EID and RLOC).

Joel, Luigi->= ;How should we proceed now?

Albert

---

A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI

=
C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap ope= ration concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new text needs to b= e validated by experts):

When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation= :

o  The outer-header '= Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be co= pied from the inner-header 'Time to Live' field.

<= /div>
o  The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code= Point' (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHO= ULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in th= e case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.

o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (= ECN) field (bits 6 and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special= treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].= ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner header to t= he outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the s= tripped outer header to the new outer header.

When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
=
 o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' fie= ld (or 'Hop Limit' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the out= er-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer hea= der is less than the Time to Live value of the inner header.  Failing t= o perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header to incre= ment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This check is also per= formed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or PI= TR destined for a LISP site.

o  The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field= (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from t= he outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) cons= idering the exception listed below.

<= div>
o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 a= nd 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in order t= o avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field c= ontains a congestion indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion= Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'EC= N' field from the stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that i= s used to forward the packet beyond the ETR.  These requirements preser= ve CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and be= comes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel endpo= ints.

Note that if an ETR/PE= TR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-encapsulate after decapsulating, th= e net effect of this is that the new outer header will carry the same Time t= o Live as the old outer header minus 1.


On Fri, Jan 26, 2= 018 at 8:20 PM, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>
Thanks for the detail review Padma. A new u= pdate to -09 is enclosed with a diff file. I will wait until next week to po= st.

I have reflected all of your comments and most of Luigi=E2=80=99s comments. T= he only issues open are:

(1) Section movement from RFC6830 to RFC6833.

(2) If an OAM document is needed.

Waiting for more working group concensus on this.

> Dear Dino and Albert
>
> The doc reads well.
> Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on t= he list
>
> Page 4
> "Client-side:  Client-side is a term used in this document to indi= cate a connection initiation attempt by an EID."
> PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not ini= tiate anything. Suggest something like this.
>
> "Client-side:  Client-side is a term used in this document t= o indicate a connection initiation attempt by the end system (represented by= an EID)=E2=80=9D

Fixed. Put in your suggestion.

> Page 6
> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's= "local" IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet must have the s= ame properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, amon= g other things, that it must be globally unique.
>
> PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below >
> The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's= "local" IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the s= ame properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, amon= g other things, that it MUST be globally unique.

Changed.

> Page 8
> An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.
> PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping entr= y where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC.

I changed to =E2=80=9Czero or more RLOCs.=E2=80=9D.

> Page 8
> When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not= create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.
>
> PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Security Consid= erations section as this is an exploit possibility.

I have removed the sentence. Because it actually is not true. If you u= se different mapping systems and circuitious forwarding occurs. The packet t= ravels only until its TTL reaches 0. Using the rules for copy inner to outer= and outer to inner during RTR re-encapsulation applies.

> Page 13
> "gleaned" mapping
>
> PPE 5: Suggest adding =E2=80=9Cglean mapping=E2=80=9D in the definition= section.

Changed.

> Page 17
> "The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are encry= pted."
>
> PPE 6: Nit - Typo "encapsualted" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulated"

Fixed.

>
> Page 20
> "When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set  retrieved from the map= -cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location."
>
> PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for consistenc= y with rest of document.

Thanks. Done.

>
> Page 23
> "The server-side sets a Weight of 0..."
> PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero=E2=80=9D= .

Changed.

> Page 23
> "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the cli= ent determining load  distribution."
>
> PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side"
>
> "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and t= he client-side determining load distribution.=E2=80=9D

Done.

> Page 24
> When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occu= rs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches
> the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1]   This "gleaning" m= echanism is OPTIONAL.
>
> PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution.  Cha= nges in the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache fas= t =E2=80=A6however this text make it sound that this is not an option after f= irst packet.

It is an option when the ETR has no mapping to return packets. Once a= mapping is cache, there is no point to glean since the mapping system verif= ied the information the same as in the map-cache.

>
> Page 25
> "Note that trusting ICMP messages may  not be desirable, but neith= er is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow cur= rent best practices in treating these conditions."
>
> PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible.

Added draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering.

> Page 25
> "An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine th= at an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exists tha= t matches the RLOC IP address."
>
> PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entry? We= are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the protocol.<= br>
Yes, we can generalize this. I changed text.

> Page 38
> "For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer t= o [RFC7215]."
>
> PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> =E2=80=9Cnetwork"

Changed.

> Page 40
> "By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it ca= n choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for= a new encapsuluation path to the destination end site."
>
> PPE 14: Nit Typo "encapsuluation" -> =E2=80=9Cencapsulation"

Changed.

> Page 43
> "If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by r= edirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially overloading it.= "
>

> PPE 15: Nit  typo "victim;s" -> =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80=99= s=E2=80=9D

Changed.

Dino


   










= --Apple-Mail-F38C400B-FEE3-400C-96FA-169EDF67EE2E-- From nobody Sun Jan 28 19:17:24 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E95F13155F for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 PuZzpTMtOc-G for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4350D13156D for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295B11C0DA8; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1517195839; bh=7cZ0mKsRVdBCvzPTc+T5sm9qrVVHxoUFW4UGou8GONg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Qkme3ZPpnLdJXpxCWOxxKj0Ke/8uAXDdr5jWt85/OIzJ6hylKyZYezt+jbybVcjgI goAdIzBPmKVxLn6L/wUTewh1ampL90eWqpoGF8DxDUuWF38BrPtjLDtSYeYCKtc45R 2aDHdv8pZpJzD5w/X5uVsctYPD0aFoF1TRpTqWCQ= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [111.223.96.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 388981C0657; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:15 -0800 (PST) To: Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos Cc: lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, "lisp@ietf.org list" References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> <784FC076-8BA8-42E4-9891-2685A3DE40F5@gmail.com> From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <73829a96-aa11-066b-b5a0-2a6d6721c76b@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 22:17:21 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <784FC076-8BA8-42E4-9891-2685A3DE40F5@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 03:17:23 -0000 Assuming Luigi agrees, there should be a version of this dcoument submitted that incorporates what Dino did for A and C, and addresses D - G. Yours, Joel On 1/28/18 10:07 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote: > Note A and C are addressed in the -09 revision I sent out in Friday. > > Dino > > On Jan 28, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Albert Cabellos > wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Thanks for all the comments, from my understanding of this thread the >> following list of items *seem* to have rough consensus (all except B - >> change definitions for EID and RLOC). >> >> Joel, Luigi->How should we proceed now? >> >> Albert >> >> --- >> >> A.- Remove definitions of PA and PI >> >> C.- In section 5.3, change the description of the encap/decap >> operation concerning how to deal with ECN and DSCP bits to (new >> text needs to be validated by experts): >> >> When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation: >> >> >> o  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' >> field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the >> inner-header 'Time to Live' field. >> >> >> o  The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' >> (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of >> IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header DSCP field >> ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the >> exception listed below. >> >> >> o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 >> and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special >> treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of >> congestion [RFC3168]. ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit >> 'ECN' field from the inner header to the outer header. >> Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the >> stripped outer header to the new outer header. >> >> >> When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation: >> >> >>  o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' >> field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the >> outer-header 'Time to Live' field, when the Time to Live value >> of the outer header is less than the Time to Live value of the >> inner header.  Failing to perform this check can cause the >> Time to Live of the inner header to increment across >> encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This check is also >> performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet >> comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site. >> >> >> o  The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' >> (DSCP) field (or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of >> IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header DSCP field >> ('Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) considering the >> exception listed below. >> >> >> o  The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 >> and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special >> treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of >> congestion [RFC3168]. If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion >> indication codepoint (the value is '11', the Congestion >> Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR decapsulation MUST copy >> the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the >> surviving inner header that is used to forward the packet >> beyond the ETR.  These requirements preserve CE indications >> when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and >> becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between >> the tunnel endpoints. >> >> >> Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to >> re-encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is >> that the new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as >> the old outer header minus 1. >> >> >> Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it >> preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel; >> second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of >> looping packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated >> tunnels due to misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for TTL >> exception handling for traceroute packets. >> >> >> D.- Simplify section ‘Router Locator Selection’ stating that the >> data-plane MUST follow what´s stored in the map-cache (priorities >> and weights), the remaining text should go to an OAM document. >> >> E.- Rewrite Section “Routing Locator Reachability” considering the >> following changes: >> >> *    Keep bullet point 1 (examine LSB), 6 (receiving a >> data-packet) and Echo-Nonce >> *    Move to 6833bis bullet point 2 (ICMP Network/Host >> Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port Unreachable),5 >> (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC probing >> >> F.- Move Solicit-Map-Request to 6833bis >> >> G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement >> Considerations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Dino Farinacci > > wrote: >> >> Thanks for the detail review Padma. A new update to -09 is >> enclosed with a diff file. I will wait until next week to post. >> >> I have reflected all of your comments and most of Luigi’s >> comments. The only issues open are: >> >> (1) Section movement from RFC6830 to RFC6833. >> >> (2) If an OAM document is needed. >> >> Waiting for more working group concensus on this. >> >> > Dear Dino and Albert >> > >> > The doc reads well. >> > Please find thereafter some comments on the version- 09 you posted on the list >> > >> > Page 4 >> > "Client-side:  Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate a connection initiation attempt by an EID." >> > PPE 1: Strictly speaking the EID is just an identifier and does not initiate anything. Suggest something like this. >> > >> > "Client-side:  Client-side is a term used in this document to >> indicate a connection initiation attempt by the end system >> (represented by an EID)” >> >> Fixed. Put in your suggestion. >> >> > Page 6 >> > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally unique. >> > >> > PPE 2: Shouldn't these two be MUST rather than must? Suggestion below >> > >> > The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local" IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be globally unique. >> >> Changed. >> >> > Page 8 >> > An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. >> > PPE 3: Seems to contradict earlier explanation on negative mapping entry where it is possible that an EID has NO RLOC. >> >> I changed to “zero or more RLOCs.”. >> >> > Page 8 >> > When using multiple mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-encapsulation loops through misconfiguration. >> > >> > PPE 4: Suggest to add "re-encapsulation" in the list in Security Considerations section as this is an exploit possibility. >> >> I have removed the sentence. Because it actually is not true. If >> you use different mapping systems and circuitious forwarding >> occurs. The packet travels only until its TTL reaches 0. Using the >> rules for copy inner to outer and outer to inner during RTR >> re-encapsulation applies. >> >> > Page 13 >> > "gleaned" mapping >> > >> > PPE 5: Suggest adding “glean mapping” in the definition section. >> >> Changed. >> >> > Page 17 >> > "The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are encrypted." >> > >> > PPE 6: Nit - Typo "encapsualted" -> “encapsulated" >> >> Fixed. >> >> > >> > Page 20 >> > "When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set  retrieved from the map-cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location." >> > >> > PPE 7: Nit - Suggest capitalize L and S of "locator-set" for consistency with rest of document. >> >> Thanks. Done. >> >> > >> > Page 23 >> > "The server-side sets a Weight of 0..." >> > PPE 8: Nit - For consistency in text change to "Weight of zero”. >> >> Changed. >> >> > Page 23 >> > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and the client determining load  distribution." >> > >> > PPE 9: Suggest use of "Client-side" >> > >> > "Control is shared by the server- side determining the list and >> the client-side determining load distribution.” >> >> Done. >> >> > Page 24 >> > When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches >> > the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.[PE1]   This "gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL. >> > >> > PPE 10: In section 16.2 later gleaning is used as a solution.  Changes in the gleaned info could be an interesting way to update the cache fast …however this text make it sound that this is not an option after first packet. >> >> It is an option when the ETR has no mapping to return packets. >> Once a mapping is cache, there is no point to glean since the >> mapping system verified the information the same as in the map-cache. >> >> > >> > Page 25 >> > "Note that trusting ICMP messages may  not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices in treating these conditions." >> > >> > PPE 11: A reference would be useful if possible. >> >> Added draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering. >> >> > Page 25 >> > "An ITR that participates in the global routing system can determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address." >> > >> > PPE 12: Isn't this true for any protocol entry not just a BGP entry? We are really trying to determine if there is no route whatever the protocol. >> >> Yes, we can generalize this. I changed text. >> >> > Page 38 >> > "For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer to [RFC7215]." >> > >> > PPE 13: Nit typo "netword"-> “network" >> >> Changed. >> >> > Page 40 >> > "By having the PE be the first router on the path to encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the destination end site." >> > >> > PPE 14: Nit Typo "encapsuluation" -> “encapsulation" >> >> Changed. >> >> > Page 43 >> > "If the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially overloading it." >> > >> >> > PPE 15: Nit  typo "victim;s" -> “victim’s” >> >> Changed. >> >> Dino >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > From nobody Sun Jan 28 19:17:51 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1156913156A for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ItVQk7tsJxb3 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (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 ACAEE13156C for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k19so3710222pfj.5 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Cc5mAwlVCvV6+agPPf2e9v/K9bxtg1+iRuiVJYAAywY=; b=iJOdz8hfng3aX2jDSFatv7Jprxg6716IqeLS9vY/fUYCg1PAnYF5mzf5TthyooM9Ip nORt2L4Bat1D/DNepLMq85j749HALqlBx8habY9U0M7NgtaPEokYqn8wX9kDnuk18q+q VPTBXdTPy5Yqtolj+M6L0nYaj+qLFm8gYSGF1em+1xzYjCTS5o4w1z8VWoNI0rN9NXMC pNELbbVLinN1b6FaAPBtpgmPNbkdla/ZCiTO34jevd9WCe9AfRoLlW687/Z90hGc3sbj O1gElMs9ogEWNGTnfkODlyjc9MUKA+eEXCO0p5TE1/NamX5uEkhWwBqYT03enOIUtVrg Xmjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Cc5mAwlVCvV6+agPPf2e9v/K9bxtg1+iRuiVJYAAywY=; b=ZUL9Hu3/G5wdTJK57Ri+ATEgm1iA9Afc5namDT6ahbMy0Nb9l+LlTGwyezunYsSMOi /XrkUTLyUuzOgz6B9xke0c+0xxK2e5qPRyL4hvPegqOjYCss1Rap2zEAX/3aIM43TqEX do5AifU7PATzj4lAy/IPpPr2FsI7VicOkNKyLx2KNENrVWE0ghWmd89tS48FTitcaJum QLO4X9119aXdi4JKfsBpxCgZ8R73XFEPNZD7bI8PnuSPe/jpwqh5C3s4xl0WiImajY4I ASG+mI60Es4xVwy9flc2zo9bUXZSFUX3ybGQgO54YyROQRh/pP0JtgwnlecBzla9RdCw VZFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdH1Z3TAVhub4XJ9dsVRFc7ZgZ+CZXecIpmV1rLk55ZhdiDob6G 1UX3xlj8yQSGTkm7vBSG6eDLevFM X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227GXAPUl2aX+lPBfJwMAWuScdORzy8b3/YQjQkp3JMqX3YwhN9SRZ/5133KesG6HH9Hyz8htA== X-Received: by 10.98.228.5 with SMTP id r5mr26151488pfh.193.1517195861174; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:4564:f5d7:a123:b858? ([2603:3024:151c:55f0:4564:f5d7:a123:b858]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 8sm37329237pfh.170.2018.01.28.19.17.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:40 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15D60) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 19:17:40 -0800 Cc: Padma Pillay-Esnault , Albert Cabellos , Luigi Iannone , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> To: Albert Cabellos Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 03:17:50 -0000 > On Jan 28, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Albert Cabellos w= rote: >=20 > G.- Move sections 16 (Mobility Considerations), 17 (xTR Placement Consider= ations), 18 (Traceroute Consideration) to a new OAM document For the record I don=E2=80=99t support this. It will slow down the process w= hile the benefit won=E2=80=99t be worth the cost of an additional document I= MO.=20 Dino= From nobody Mon Jan 29 04:21:47 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8148912EAE3 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:21:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 IxR-N5PCcRYB for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x22a.google.com (mail-wr0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22a]) (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 B08E0131825 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v31so6960074wrc.11 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:20:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=n/lwCj0s4XPgP8wKAGtMZzRyCN7Gp5wDR5HnfiM23UU=; b=lOKEaKvtSRupCYXlz+DXPgc19aPL5oLbMlDs5rLTR2hbY1kERyYTFciM3X+4C2u3CM IbTNiJIheXjKPAj0/GmSzisPJkVsgZQCGbLrZ1ofvuwBfeyUMYt46jtvOCVOpHzK3+K2 5oZ3lio26YW6moykle+SgcL79EZJpHx1JGIZvUzLXOIyrDWqh5IUXgaNP4ef895dLyGA jcOlAeGk0cIZ9Ccp4TG+7rUELbjZ7/qGX0LQcs4DzCb2rVN5ksq9A3QldASVNqkzZZ/g 7U0aoL/i7pQmDue4JJreQd7CF5EwPVZ21IkpVYMfK3vy79cUx9wjd0V8zBjgSO/Z9sZq lMGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=n/lwCj0s4XPgP8wKAGtMZzRyCN7Gp5wDR5HnfiM23UU=; b=lt1icnv8jiBEfeqfYzWD3tOhc3+S3mHNKYG+t03C80/iIKoIfSTs3Wm+uLQwJcOYCr mRYPNhx1etZ9NhdKy+iMVqZy5xelZUPGYaj2XSl9YGTLnw3rg+zOMzRkpQDeuw72QhTD 7mEpAiApB2EcQ/vfAJG71WGiNhHjwqaHYH+vUM+aTrhtm9iYzMNxHF+04iXaznZGHD3h cUmx8o9gzB2hvZEBOJXB6OMP3Y3Yh30UsjvpY+/zljHq8xLAMhAgTniX/0D4nj9s1M7f dcKeorr3c4J22KST9IPgn+SL+rz/pciyO2Pm1MIFxfTJlsITJulpyGht6BAILeS/BeIS pYPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyte0oaAJgbdmsKsbfjdjrI3BmdArLpG3Cgd3+k1IOqdXc7/Ihf8q yFGseWpgzyXqI7DuznySa64FQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224tEbjL6CLXR1wuKZLQMeQC+M67G/bRsea5mCIlsorns5TQ2eQfRw68j8dS457ZglzZrTXPIA== X-Received: by 10.223.144.198 with SMTP id i64mr3997612wri.6.1517228450058; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:20:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:f979:e58f:32c7:361c? ([2001:660:330f:a4:f979:e58f:32c7:361c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm12157905wrh.96.2018.01.29.04.20.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:20:48 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <73829a96-aa11-066b-b5a0-2a6d6721c76b@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:21:15 +0100 Cc: Dino Farinacci , Albert Cabellos , "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3E2EFFE2-7F5E-4212-87C9-33AE8D9DAB8F@gigix.net> References: <545E1F14-2386-47CF-9337-E1FF1354CD03@gmail.com> <2893FDD0-35A6-4D41-90B6-3E794BEFE421@gmail.com> <784FC076-8BA8-42E4-9891-2685A3DE40F5@gmail.com> <73829a96-aa11-066b-b5a0-2a6d6721c76b@joelhalpern.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Confirm/Deny changes on draft 6830bis X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:21:45 -0000 > On 29 Jan 2018, at 04:17, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >=20 > Assuming Luigi agrees, there should be a version of this dcoument = submitted that incorporates what Dino did for A and C, and addresses D - = G. Yes, that works for me. Thanks Ciao L. From nobody Mon Jan 29 04:28:42 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A1112EAE4 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:28:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 iE1X1KdsUXOZ for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (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 5EB1B12EAAB for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i56so6983047wra.7 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:28:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gigix-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ciiHn3zpWh7RyTcxnV4BMPgDF/8kR6vM4tYJPy6UGIc=; b=W0KH9asWDoV0o711ZyQ1bvLB0DLJ+D9v8utaNqUaULYVIoYOkXQGHQt6+C+x3iIcIe g+ikJDmmv6KCjHQp96VSZ/6oPL7u3cyi9DBtCXWOJiWk1X855tfKTvLvLLX/9vCheoAt 92ENrnR3t/CpNjCqur+ueQ5T9rAF4MaoIRAs9xuBkGMmMzxsBhH3C1o5EkkfKW+v/2hS YjSFOnsei6W+A+Uof1ehut9DPlxW+1cu2T2H2XeWx2jpP1bh42v6LRVLBR/QhYvS0uv4 heDh9AdaxMEIL8DpuNLTWvcbZ9m9UV3fSo61KZBcDNRlD21Bp2QZDlD8uKsU9eTKq8E5 N0Fg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ciiHn3zpWh7RyTcxnV4BMPgDF/8kR6vM4tYJPy6UGIc=; b=meCs0bG7TUKxY8IjW2vAFtUKr9ug8JGPJqMoxZ0tqLYhf5NvDQsBLFm3FQrcWJjLJc 4aCCgwpkEVE56wfljXD/wEncZWLfwHbM98kjw+1q8TRVX1Dduvy+1IUxm/OLwZSJwkHc UyZsyg6f1XJTwqD+5tf4WxztXnATCJ9pOid33SIxCUmdceQ/9Cu0yEbPalVB37dwJdm9 Fk7j4cqX9HlNKFgyECd7NoELDyB3Wthio2LIrlJlIyzPex8XFe4zrxTjQWHr+Xxk2fNi 41r4Z+Ki5P6gjkvW3XiRkCFLht1HfZE5uLQfMw9wfbQNLeT7Bz3o9yU6WOhZuwClHfuL P3wg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc6KrXb+8b3315W4Tg6Wktu9UTNqHutQY3MjoJeVEsTq/GXPS7d 80YBVSNOgvFHdncesRJHsOexOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224SvKBBezBwX1JamXROEX8Mp5uvkNd8l/wuFgOECHbSD/WhsOweqlxuPiV86AjsGMMVrq+hAA== X-Received: by 10.223.170.11 with SMTP id p11mr18765972wrd.26.1517228917776; Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:f979:e58f:32c7:361c? ([2001:660:330f:a4:f979:e58f:32c7:361c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l92sm19723845wrc.31.2018.01.29.04.28.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jan 2018 04:28:36 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\)) From: Luigi Iannone In-Reply-To: <56E6CB70-E784-42A8-9166-5564796D40C2@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 13:29:03 +0100 Cc: "lisp@ietf.org list" , lisp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <56E6CB70-E784-42A8-9166-5564796D40C2@gmail.com> To: Dino Farinacci X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [lisp] Review 6830bis -08/-09 X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:28:41 -0000 Hi Dino, > On 26 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Dino Farinacci wrote: >>=20 >> The fact that (P)ITRs use this mechanism does make it a data-plane = mechanism. is the LISP control plane running on (P)ITRs that does it, = using control plane messages. >>> RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine = the >>> reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in = a >>> Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply >>> messages is used for RLOC-Probing. >=20 > No one said PITRs are special or different than ITRs in this regard. = For both, they use the control plane messages to determine reachabiltity = for RLOCs that THE DATA-PLANE encapsulates to. May be I did not express clearly. I did not suggest that PITR and ITR = are different in RLOC probing. > The data-plane operation decides based on packet counter, RTT, TTL and = other mechanisms if the RLOC is of quality for use. >=20 > Any other entity that doesn=E2=80=99t do packet forwarding that does = mapping system lookups doesn=E2=80=99t consider these things. Hence, why = this issue of the control-plane needs to be described in the document = related to packet forwarding. >=20 Two quick comments: 1. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the RLOC Probing = section clearly states that RLOC probing is a control plane mechanism = based on a time. 2. RLOC Probing can be done by anybody, not only ITRs and PITRs. Any = other entity can check RLOCs to make sure they are alive. As such better = put the text in 6833bis. Ciao L. =20 =20= From nobody Wed Jan 31 09:23:25 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D95612DB70 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:23:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 00e-yhwqyO6p for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:23:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from osiris.lip6.fr (osiris.lip6.fr [132.227.60.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B69FA12DA4A for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 09:23:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from tibre.lip6.fr (tibre.lip6.fr [132.227.74.2]) by osiris.lip6.fr (8.15.2/lip6) with ESMTP id w0VHNIiK022639 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:23:18 +0100 (CET) X-pt: osiris.lip6.fr Received: from portablephung3.wifi.rsr.lip6.fr (portablephung3.wifi [132.227.79.178]) (authenticated bits=0) by tibre.lip6.fr (8.15.1/8.14.7) with ESMTPSA id w0VHNHZr011094 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:23:18 +0100 (MET) To: lisp@ietf.org From: Chi Dung PHUNG Message-ID: <0583a6e1-46cf-21e4-e729-4d232218363b@lip6.fr> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:23:18 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B6964F29BD3C4CB78E2579CF" Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (osiris.lip6.fr [132.227.60.30]); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:23:18 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.30 Archived-At: Subject: [lisp] LISP MSX X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:23:24 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B6964F29BD3C4CB78E2579CF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello all, The LISP-Lab consortium (http://www.lisp-lab.org) worked in the last few years to a novel solution for the interconnection of multiple independent mapping systems. We have posted a video tutorial that provides a description of the proposal, with motivations and technical demonstration of the major bricks: http://www.lisp-lab.org/msx Comments are welcome. Thanks, PCD. --------------B6964F29BD3C4CB78E2579CF Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
Hello all,
The LISP-Lab consortium (http://www.lisp-lab.org) worked in the last few years to a novel solution for the interconnection of multiple independent mapping systems. We have posted a video tutorial that provides a description of the proposal, with motivations and technical demonstration of the major bricks:

http://www.lisp-lab.org/msx

Comments are welcome.

Thanks,
PCD.
--------------B6964F29BD3C4CB78E2579CF--