Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis
Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting
Expires: 8 November 2022 D. Meyer
1-4-5.net
D. Lewis
Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech
7 May 2022
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38
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.
This document obsoletes RFC 6830.
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 8 November 2022.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 23
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
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. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 . . . . . . . . 41
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37 . . . . . . . . 41
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 . . . . . . . . 41
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 42
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 42
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 43
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 43
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 43
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 43
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 44
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 44
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 44
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 45
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 46
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46
B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46
B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 47
B.31. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 47
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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 as well as how LISP-capable
routers (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 the 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.
This document obsoletes RFC 6830.
1.1. Scope of Applicability
LISP was originally developed to address the Internet-wide route
scaling problem [RFC4984]. While there are a number of approaches of
interest for that problem, as LISP as been developed and refined, a
large number of other LISP uses have been found and are being used.
As such, the design and development of LISP has changed so as to
focus on these use cases. The common property of these uses is a
large set of cooperating entities seeking to communicate over the
public Internet or other large underlay IP infrastructures, while
keeping the addressing and topology of the cooperating entities
separate from the underlay and Internet topology, routing, and
addressing.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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
addresses found in Data-Plane headers. 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 refers 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.
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 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 IP addresses
that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be
transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP 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-
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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 widely scoped to LISP nodes.
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 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 that identifies a host. EIDs are generally only found
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 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 underlay 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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.
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. An ETR MUST
rate-limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the
Locator-Status-Bits.
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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. 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.
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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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:
* 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.
* LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See
details in Section 4.2 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".
* RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
* 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),
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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.
* 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.
* 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 destination 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet
Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for
deployment in controlled, trusted environments, and are insecure for
use over the public Internet. In particular, on the public internet
xTRs:
* MUST set the N, L, E, and V bits in the LISP header (Section 5.1)
to zero.
* MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, as described in
Section 10 for Routing Locator Reachability. Instead MUST rely
solely on control-plane methods.
* MUST NOT use Gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning,
as described in Section 13 to update the EID-to-RLOC Mappings.
Instead relying solely on control-plane methods.
4.2. 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:
* Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not
not using LISP.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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].
* 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:
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. A method to do this
is to send a LISP Map-Request, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message, 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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.
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].
As LISP uses UDP encapsulation to carry traffic between xTRs across
the Internet, implementors should be aware of the provisions of
[RFC8085], especially those given in section 3.1.11 on congestion
control for UDP tunneling.
Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines
in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect UDP and
LISP headers against corruption.
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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 = 17 | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source Routing Locator |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 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 = 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=17| Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
O + +
u | |
t + Source Routing Locator +
e | |
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
r + +
| |
^ + Destination Routing Locator +
| | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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.
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 8 November 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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 the [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
specification for more details on Database Map-Versioning. 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 and unassigned 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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
RLOCs. 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.
Finally, when both the N and V-bit are not set (N=0, V=0), then
both the Nonce and Map-Version fields are set to 0 and ignored on
receipt.
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 (longest-match).
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:
* 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.
* The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
field or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be
copied from the inner-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
field in the case of IPv6, to the outer-header. Guidelines for
this can be found at [RFC2983].
* The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires special treatment
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
specified in [RFC6040].
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
* The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field or 'Hop Limit' field in
the case of IPv6, MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
Live'/'Hop Limit' field, when the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' value
of the outer header is less than the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit'
value of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can
cause the 'Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' 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.
* The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP)
field or the 'Traffic Class' field in the case of IPv6, SHOULD be
copied from the outer-header IPv4 DSCP field or 'Traffic Class'
field in the case of IPv6, to the inner-header. Guidelines for
this can be found at [RFC2983].
* The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires special
treatment in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion
as specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that
copy the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header
even though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is
RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior in
[RFC6040].
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.
Some xTRs and PxTRs performs re-encapsulation operations and need to
treat the 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) in a special way.
Because the re-encapsulation operation is a sequence of two
operations, namely a decapsulation followed by an encapsulation, the
ECN bits MUST be treated as described above for these two operations.
The LISP dataplane protocol is not backwards compatible with
[RFC6830] and does not have explicit support for introducing future
protocol changes (e.g. an explicit version field). However, the LISP
control plane [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] allows an ETR to register
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
dataplane capabilities by means of new LCAF types [RFC8060]. In this
way an ITR can be made aware of the dataplane capabilities of an ETR,
and encapsulate accordingly. The specification of the new LCAF
types, new LCAF mechanisms, and their use, is out of the scope of
this document.
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]. While
the mapping is being retrieved, the ITR/PITR can either drop or
buffer the packets. This document does not have specific
recommendations about the action to be taken. It is up to the
deployer to consider whether or not it is desirable to buffer packets
and deploy a LISP implementation that offers the desired behaviour.
Once the mapping is resolved it 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. The network
administrator of the LISP deployment has to determine what is the
suitable value of L so to make sure that no MTU issues arise.
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 = 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
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 MUST be performed by the ITR only 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 (adding in the size of the encapsulation header)
is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-
Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" message to the source with a value
of S, where S is (L - H).
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. Additional
information about in-network MTU and fragmentation issues can be
found at [RFC4459].
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows:
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 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 an ICMPv4
Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed to the ITR, respectively. 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 ICMPv4 ICMP
Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source. The
packet size advertised by the ITR in the ICMP 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.
Please note that [RFC1191] and [RFC1981], which describe the use of
ICMP packets for PMTU discovery, can behave suboptimally in the
presence of ICMP black holes or off-path attackers that spoof ICMP.
Possible mitigations include ITRs and ETRs cooperating on MTU probe
packets ([RFC4821], [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud]), or ITRs
storing the beginning of large packets to verify that they match the
echoed packet in ICMP Frag Needed/PTB.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. Please note that the Instance ID is not protected, an on-
path attacker can modify the tags and for instance, allow
communicatons between logically isolated VLANs.
Participants within a LISP deployment must agree on the meaning of
Instance ID values. The source and destination EIDs MUST belong to
the same Instance ID.
Instance ID SHOULD NOT be used with overlapping IPv6 EID addresses.
9. Routing Locator Selection
The Map-Cache contains the state used by ITRs and PITRs to
encapsulate packets. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside
the LISP site to a destination outside of the site a longest-prefix
match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache (see Section 6).
The lookup returns a single Locator-Set containing a list of RLOCs
corresponding to the EID's topological location. Each RLOC in the
Locator-Set is associated with a 'Priority' and 'Weight', this
information is used to select the RLOC to encapsulate.
The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with
'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When
multiple RLOCs have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how
to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight'
represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the
mapping entry.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
controls that are available:
* The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use
one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection.
* 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.
* 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. See Section 12 for details on
load-sharing mechanisms. 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.
* Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean"
the RLOCs. For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then
the client-side ITR gives 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. Gleaning has several important considerations. A
"gleaned" Map-Cache entry is only stored and used for a
RECOMMENDED period of 3 seconds, pending verification.
Verification MUST be 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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 MUST NOT be used over the public
Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed
deployments. Refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding
this mechanism.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 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 Data-Plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are
currently defined. Please note that additional Control-Plane based
reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
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. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely to be
reachable. Please note that in some scenarios the RLOC from the
outer header can be an spoofable field.
3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability
algorithms described in this section.
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:
* Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
route into the site IGP.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
* 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.
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.
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 xTR decides to use 'Locator-Status-Bits' to affect
reachability information, it acts as follows: ETRs decapsulating a
packet 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.
Locator-Status-Bits MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and
SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. In addition
Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] to prevent race conditions where Locator-
Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than
intended. Refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding this
mechanism.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
If an ITR encapsulates a packet to an ETR and the packet is received
and decapsulated by the ETR, it is implied but not confirmed by the
ITR that the ETR's RLOC is reachable. 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.
The security considerations of Section 16 related to data-plane
reachability applies to the data-plane RLOC reachability mechanisms
described in this section.
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 is an xTR (co-located as an ITR),
it then sends a data packet to the ITR (when it is an xTR co-located
as an ETR), 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. In
this case, an xTR receiving the echo-nonce-request packets will
suspend the echo-nonce-request state and setup a 'echo-nonce-request-
state' timer. After the 'echo-nonce-request-state' timer expires it
will resume the echo-nonce-request state.
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 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 Map-Reply
message.
Many implementations default to not advertising they are echo-nonce
capable in Map-Reply messages and so RLOC-probing tends to be used
for RLOC reachability.
The echo-nonce mechanism MUST NOT be used over the public Internet
and MUST only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to
Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism.
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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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.
The specific hash algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of
scope for this document and does not prevent interoperability.
The Source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the
same flow. Also 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. The
source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same
flow.
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
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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. In this scenario, when the outer header is IPv6, the
flow label MAY also be set following the procedures specified in
[RFC6438]. When the inner header is IPv6 then the flow label is not
zero, it MAY be used to compute the hash.
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.
This section defines two Data-Plane mechanism for updating EID-to-
RLOC mappings. Additionally, the Solicit-Map Request (SMR) Control-
Plane updating mechanism is specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
13.1. Locator-Status-Bits
Locator-Status-Bits (LSB) can also be used to keep track of the
Locator status (up or down) when EID-to-RLOC mappings are changing.
When LSB are used in a LISP deployment, all LISP tunnel routers MUST
implement both ITR and ETR capabilities (therefore all tunnel routers
are effectively xTRs). In this section the term "source xTR" is used
to refer to the xTR setting the LSB and "destination xTR" is used to
refer to the xTR receiving the LSB. The procedure is as follows:
First, when a Locator record is added or removed from the Locator-
Set, the source xTR will signal this by sending a Solicit-Map Request
(SMR) Control-Plane message [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to the
destination xTR. At this point the source xTR MUST NOT use LSB
(L-bit = 0) since the destination xTR site has outdated information.
The source xTR will setup a 'use-LSB' timer.
Second and as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], upon reception
of the SMR message the destination xTR will retrieve the updated EID-
to-RLOC mappings by sending a Map-Request.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
And third, when the 'use-LSB' timer expires, the source xTR can use
again LSB with the destination xTR to signal the Locator status (up
or down). The specific value for the 'use-LSB' timer depends on the
LISP deployment, the 'use-LSB' timer needs to be large enough for the
destination xTR to retreive the updated EID-to-RLOC mappings. A
RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5 minutes.
13.2. 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, can send Map-Reply messages carrying a Map-Version Number in
an EID-record. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number.
ITRs include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
encapsulate to the site.
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 presented in EID-records of Map-Register messages, a Map-Version
Number is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs for a
site registering to it are synchronized according to Map-Version
Number.
See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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 routable on the underlay.
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 [RFC8378],
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:
* 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
* 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.
* 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 16.
16. Security Considerations
In what follows we highlight security considerations that apply when
LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in
Section 1.1.
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 and/or nonce of a victim's xTR can
manipulate such mechanisms to declare false information about the
RLOC's reachability status.
For example of such attacks, an off-path attacker can exploit the
echo-nonce mechanism by sending data packets to an ITR with a random
nonce from an ETR's spoofed RLOC. Note the attacker must guess a
valid nonce the ITR is requesting to be echoed within a small window
of time. The goal is to convince the ITR that the ETR's RLOC is
reachable even when it may not be reachable. If the attack is
successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability status of the
ETR's RLOC until RLOC-probing detects the correct status. This time
frame is on the order of 10s of seconds. This specific attack can be
mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the network by deploying
uRPF BCP 38 [RFC2827]. In addition and in order to exploit this
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
vulnerability, the off-path attacker must send echo-nonce packets at
high rate. If the nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it
can protect itself from erroneous reachability attacks.
A LISP-specific uRPF check is also possible. When decapsulating, an
ETR can check that the source EID and RLOC are valid EID-to-RLOC
mappings by checking the Mapping System.
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. Further
security considerations on Map-Versioning can be found in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis].
Locator-Status-Bits, echo-nonce and map-versioning MUST NOT be used
over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and
closed deployments. In addition Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be
coupled with map-versioning to prevent race conditions where Locator-
Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different RLOCs than
intended.
LISP implementations and deployments which permit outer header
fragments of IPv6 LISP encapsulated packets as a means of dealing
with MTU issues should also use implementation techniques in ETRs to
prevent this from being a DoS attack vector. Limits on the number of
fragments awaiting reassembly at an ETR, RTR, or PETR, and the rate
of admitting such fragments may be used.
17. 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].
18. Changes since RFC 6830
For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
made to this document since RFC 6830 was published:
* It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers
be prepended to a packet. If there is a application need for more
than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more. However,
it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP headers can be
prepended to a packet.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
* The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
for [RFC8061]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named
the KK bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is
still documented as reserved and unassigned.
* Data-Plane gleaning for creating map-cache entries has been made
optional. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume the
remote ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create any
interoperability problems since the control-plane map-cache
population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
for map-cache population.
* The bulk of the changes to this document which reduces its length
are due to moving the LISP control-plane messaging and procedures
to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
19. IANA Considerations
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].
19.1. 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
20. References
20.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-10, 3
May 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-10.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31.txt>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[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 8 November 2022 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
20.2. 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>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos, A. and D. S. (Ed.), "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lisp-introduction-15, 20 September 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
introduction-15.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-lisp-vpn-08, 18 January 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-
08.txt>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud]
Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and
T. Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-22, 10 June 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
datagram-plpmtud-22.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
J., 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>.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[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>.
[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>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4459>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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 8 November 2022 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
[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>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
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 original 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.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
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.
The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the
people who help put LISP on standards track in the IETF. They
include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino,
Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete
Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kuhlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38
* Posted May 2022.
* Removed detailed parapgraphs in Section 13.2 that is duplicated
text from [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], which is the authoritative
source for Map Versioning.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-37
* Posted May 2022.
* Added references to 6834bis instead of pointing text to
Section 13.2. This is so we can advance the Map-Versioning draft
rfc6834bis to proposed standard.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28
* Posted November 2019.
* Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators.
* Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning.
* Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27
* Posted April 2019 post telechat.
* Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions.
* Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with.
* LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed
environments.
* Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the
control-plane.
* 6831/8378 are now normative.
* Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes.
* Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26
* Posted late October 2018.
* Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and
unassigned".
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25
* Posted mid October 2018.
* Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion
about echo-nonce attacks.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24
* Posted mid October 2018.
* Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23
* Posted early October 2018.
* Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security
concerns from Telechat.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22
* Posted early October 2018.
* Changes to reflect comments post Telechat.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21
* Posted late-September 2018.
* Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20
* Posted late-September 2018.
* Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19
* Posted late-September 2018.
* More editorial changes.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18
* Posted mid-September 2018.
* Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja).
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17
* Posted September 2018.
* Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
has been shortened in length.
* Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control.
* More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews.
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16
* Posted late August 2018.
* Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
* Posted August 2018.
* Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
Standard.
* Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
* Posted July 2018 IETF week.
* Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
* Posted March IETF Week 2018.
* Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
* Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
OAM document.
* Some references changed from normative to informative
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
* Posted July 2018.
* Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
* Posted March 2018.
* Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and
Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM
document.
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
* Posted March 2018.
* Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-
Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and
weights).
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
* Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed 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
* Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
* Posted January 2018.
* Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
encapsulation and decapsulation.
* Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section
from various commenters.
* Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
* More editorial changes.
* Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
* Posted January 2018.
* Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
* Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
* Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
Iannone.
* Ran IDNITs on the document.
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
* Posted November 2017.
* Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
addresses.
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
* Posted October 2017.
* Put RTR definition before it is used.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
* Rename references that are now working group drafts.
* Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other
hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
* Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets.
* ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
* Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
* Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
* Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
* Clarify when private addresses can be used.
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
* Posted August 2017.
* Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
* Posted July 2017.
* Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
* Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
* Posted May 2017.
* Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
* Posted April 2017.
* Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
B.30. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
* Posted March 2017.
* Include references to new RFCs published.
* Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
* Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
* Remove references to "experimental".
B.31. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
* Posted December 2016.
* Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller
vaf.net Internet Consulting
Email: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer
1-4-5.net
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft LISP May 2022
Albert Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech
Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3
Barcelona Catalunya
Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Farinacci, et al. Expires 8 November 2022 [Page 48]
