Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe
draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe
Network Working Group F. Maino, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational L. Kreeger, Ed.
Expires: 8 May 2024 Arrcus
U. Elzur, Ed.
Intel
5 November 2023
Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)
draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13
Abstract
This document describes extending Virtual eXtensible Local Area
Network (VXLAN), via changes to the VXLAN header, with four new
capabilities: support for multi-protocol encapsulation, support for
operations, administration and maintenance (OAM) signaling, support
for ingress-replicated BUM Traffic (i.e. Broadcast, Unknown unicast,
or Multicast), and explicit versioning. New protocol capabilities
can be introduced via shim headers.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at 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 May 2024.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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
2. VXLAN Without Protocol Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE) . . . . . . 4
3.1. VXLAN-GPE Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Multi Protocol Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Replicated BUM Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. OAM Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Version Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Outer Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Inner VLAN Tag Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Fragmentation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. DSCP, ECN, TTL, and 802.1Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. VXLAN VTEP to VXLAN-GPE VTEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. VXLAN-GPE VTEP to VXLAN VTEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. VXLAN-GPE UDP Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. VXLAN-GPE and Encapsulated IP Header Fields . . . . . . . 16
7. VXLAN-GPE Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.1. UDP Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.2. VXLAN-GPE Next Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.3. VXLAN-GPE Flag and Reserved Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network VXLAN [RFC7348] defines an
encapsulation format that encapsulates Ethernet frames in an outer
UDP/IP transport. As data centers evolve, the need to carry other
protocols encapsulated in an IP packet is required, as well as the
need to provide increased visibility and diagnostic capabilities
within the overlay. The VXLAN header does not specify the protocol
being encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to
encapsulating only Ethernet frame payload, nor does it provide the
ability to define OAM protocols. In addition, [RFC6335] requires
that new transports not use transport layer port numbers to identify
tunnel payload, rather it encourages encapsulations to use their own
identifiers for this purpose. VXLAN-GPE is intended to extend the
existing VXLAN protocol to provide protocol typing, OAM, and
versioning capabilities.
The Version and OAM bits are introduced in Section 3, and the choice
of location for these fields is driven by minimizing the impact on
existing deployed hardware.
In order to facilitate deployments of VXLAN-GPE with hardware
currently deployed to support VXLAN, changes from legacy VXLAN have
been kept to a minimum. Section 6 provides a detailed discussion
about how VXLAN-GPE addresses the requirement for backward
compatibility with VXLAN.
The capabilities of the VXLAN-GPE protocol can be extended by
defining next protocol "shim" headers that are used to implement new
data plane functions. As an example In-situ Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) metadata functionalities can
be added as specified in [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe].
2. VXLAN Without Protocol Extension
As described in Section 1, the VXLAN header has no protocol
identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because
of this, VXLAN is limited to carrying ethernet payloads.
The VXLAN header [RFC7348] contains a single flag 'I' that, when set,
indicates the presence of a VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI).
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R|I|R|R|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: VXLAN Header
3. Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)
3.1. VXLAN-GPE Header
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|Ver|I|P|B|O| Reserved |Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: VXLAN-GPE Header
Flags (8 bits): The first 8 bits of the header are the flag field.
The bits designated "R" above are reserved flags. These MUST be
set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Version (Ver): Indicates VXLAN-GPE protocol version. The initial
version is 0. If a receiver does not support the version
indicated it MUST drop the packet.
Instance Bit (I bit): The I bit MUST be set to indicate a valid VNI.
Next Protocol Bit (P bit): The P bit is set to indicate that the
Next Protocol field is present.
BUM Traffic Bit (B bit): The B bit is set to indicate that this is
ingress-replicated BUM Traffic (ie, Broadcast, Unknown unicast, or
Multicast).
OAM Flag Bit (O bit): The O bit is set to indicate that the packet
is an OAM packet.
Next Protocol: This 8 bit field indicates the protocol header
immediately following the VXLAN-GPE header.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
VNI: This 24 bit field identifies the VXLAN overlay network the
inner packet belongs to. Inner packets belonging to different
VNIs cannot communicate with each other (unless explicitly allowed
by policy).
Reserved: Reserved fields MUST be set to zero on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
3.2. Multi Protocol Support
This draft defines the following two changes to the VXLAN header in
order to support multi-protocol encapsulation:
P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit
MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next
protocol field.
When UDP dest port=4790, P = 0 the "Next Protocol" field must be
set to zero and the payload MUST be ETHERNET(L2) as defined by
[RFC7348].
Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit because this flag bit is
currently reserved in VXLAN.
Next Protocol Field: When the P-bit is set to 1, the lower 8 bits of
the first word are used to carry a Next Protocol. This 'Next
Protocol' field contains the protocol of the encapsulated payload
packet. Values are tracked by the IANA "LISP-GPE Next Protocol"
registry, defined in Section 6.1 of [RFC9305], that VXLAN-GPE
shares with the LISP-GPE protocol. At the time this document is
edited the IANA "LISP-GPE Next Protocol" registry specifies the
following Next Protocol values:
0x00 : Reserved
0x01 : IPv4
0x02 : IPv6
0x03 : Ethernet
0x04 : Network Service Header [RFC8300]
0x05 to 0x7D: Unassigned
0x7E, 0x7F: Experimentation and testing
0x80 to 0xFD: Unassigned (shim headers)
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
0xFE, 0xFF: Experimentation and testing (shim headers)
Next protocol values 0x7E, 0x7F and 0xFE, 0xFF are assigned for
experimentation and testing as per [RFC3692].
Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFD are assigned to protocols
encoded as generic shim headers. All shim protocols MUST use the
header structure in Figure 3, which includes a 'Next Protocol' field.
When shim headers are used with other protocols identified by Next
Protocol values from 0x0 to 0x7F, all the shim headers MUST come
first.
Shim headers can be used to incrementally deploy new GPE features,
keeping the processing of shim headers known to a given VTEP
implementation in the 'fast' path (typically an Application- Specific
Integrated Circuit (ASIC)) while punting the processing of the
remaining new GPE features to the 'slow' path.
Shim protocols MUST have the first 32 bits defined as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Protocol Specific Fields ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Shim Header
Where:
Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol.
Length: This field indicates the length, in in 4-octet units, of
this protocol message not including the first 4 octets.
Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined
in this message.
Next Protocol Field: This field contains the protocol of the
encapsulated payload. The values are tracked in the IANA "LISP-
GPE Next Protocol" registry, defined in Section 6.1 of [RFC9305].
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
3.3. Replicated BUM Traffic
Flag bit 6 is defined as the B bit. When the B bit is set to 1, the
packet is marked as an an ingress-replicated BUM Traffic (i.e.
Broadcast, Unknown unicast, or Multicast) to help egress VTEP to
differentiate between known and unknown unicast. The details of
using the B bit are out of scope for this document, but please see
[RFC8365] for an example in the EVPN context. As with the P-bit, bit
6 is currently a reserved flag in VXLAN.
3.4. OAM Support
Flag bit 7 is defined as the O bit. When the O bit is set to 1, the
packet is an OAM packet and OAM processing MUST occur. Other header
fields including Next Protocol MUST adhere to the definitions in
Section 3. The OAM protocol details are out of scope for this
document. As with the P-bit, bit 7 is currently a reserved flag in
VXLAN.
3.5. Version Bits
VXLAN-GPE bits 2 and 3 are defined as version bits. These bits are
reserved in VXLAN. The version field is used to ensure backward
compatibility going forward with future VXLAN-GPE updates.
The initial version for VXLAN-GPE is 0.
4. Outer Encapsulations
In addition to the VXLAN-GPE header, the packet is further
encapsulated in UDP and IP. Data centers based on Ethernet, will
then send this IP packet over Ethernet.
Outer UDP Header:
Destination UDP Port: IANA has assigned the value 4790 for the VXLAN-
GPE UDP port. This well-known destination port is used when sending
VXLAN-GPE encapsulated packets.
Source UDP Port: The source UDP port is used as entropy for devices
forwarding encapsulated packets across the underlay (ECMP for IP
routers, or load splitting for link aggregation by bridges). Tenant
traffic flows should all use the same source UDP port to lower the
chances of packet reordering by the underlay for a given flow. It is
recommended for VTEPs to generate this port number using a hash of
the inner packet headers. Implementations MAY use the entire 16 bit
source UDP port for entropy.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
UDP Checksum: see Section 5.3 for considerations related to UDP
Checksum processing.
Outer IP Header:
This is the header used by the underlay network to deliver packets
between VTEPs. The destination IP address can be a unicast or a
multicast IP address. The source IP address must be the source VTEP
IP address which can be used to return tenant packets to the tenant
system source address within the inner packet header.
When the outer IP header is IPv4, VTEPs MUST set the DF bit.
Outer Ethernet Header:
Most data centers networks are built on Ethernet. Assuming the outer
IP packet is being sent across Ethernet, there will be an Ethernet
header used to deliver the IP packet to the next hop, which could be
the destination VTEP or be a router used to forward the IP packet
towards the destination VTEP. If VLANs are in use within the data
center, then this Ethernet header would also contain a VLAN tag.
The following figures show the entire stack of protocol headers that
would be seen on an Ethernet link carrying encapsulated packets from
a VTEP across the underlay network for both IPv4 and IPv6 based
underlay networks.
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
Outer Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination MAC Address | Outer Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opt Ethertype = C-Tag 802.1Q | Outer VLAN Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype = 0x0800 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer IPv4 Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live |Protocl=17(UDP)| Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Source IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer UDP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port | Dest Port = 4790 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
VXLAN-GPE Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|Ver|I|P|R|O| Reserved |Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Payload:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Depends on VXLAN-GPE Next Protocol field above. |
| Note that if the payload is Ethernet, then the original |
| Ethernet Frame's FCS is not included. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Frame Check Sequence:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| New FCS (Frame Check Sequence) for Outer Ethernet Frame |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Outer Headers for VXLAN-GPE over IPv4
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
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
Outer Ethernet Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Destination MAC Address | Outer Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer Source MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opt Ethertype = C-Tag 802.1Q | Outer VLAN Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ethertype = 0x86DD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer IPv6 Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | NxtHdr=17(UDP)| Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Outer Source IPv6 Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Outer Destination IPv6 Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Outer UDP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port | Dest Port = 4790 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
VXLAN-GPE Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
|R|R|Ver|I|P|R|O| Reserved |Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Payload:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Depends on VXLAN-GPE Next Protocol field above. |
| Note that if the payload is Ethernet, then the original |
| Ethernet Frame's FCS is not included. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Frame Check Sequence:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| New FCS (Frame Check Sequence) for Outer Ethernet Frame |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Outer Headers for VXLAN-GPE over IPv6
4.1. Inner VLAN Tag Handling
If the inner packet (as indicated by the VXLAN-GPE Next Protocol
field) is an Ethernet frame, it is recommended that it does not
contain a VLAN tag. In the most common scenarios, the tenant VLAN
tag is translated into a VXLAN Network Identifier. In these
scenarios, VTEPs should never send an inner Ethernet frame with a
VLAN tag, and a VTEP performing decapsulation should discard any
inner frames received with a VLAN tag. However, if the VTEPs are
specifically configured to support it for a specific VXLAN Network
Identifier, a VTEP may support transparent transport of the inner
VLAN tag between all tenant systems on that VNI. The VTEP never
looks at the value of the inner VLAN tag, but simply passes it across
the underlay.
4.2. Fragmentation Considerations
VTEPs MUST never fragment an encapsulated VXLAN-GPE packet, and when
the outer IP header is IPv4, VTEPs MUST set the DF bit in the outer
IPv4 header. It is recommended that the underlay network be
configured to carry an MTU at least large enough to accommodate the
added encapsulation headers. It is recommended that VTEPs perform
Path MTU discovery [RFC1191] [RFC1981] to determine if the underlay
network can carry the encapsulated payload packet.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
5. Implementation and Deployment Considerations
5.1. Applicability Statement
VXLAN-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the
UDP usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of
these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the
nature of the encapsulated payload.
[RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications,
1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled
environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of
cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be
managed to operate under certain conditions whereas, in the general
Internet, this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel
protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less
restrictive than the requirements of the general Internet.
VXLAN-GPE is intended to be deployed in a data center network
environment operated by a single operator or adjacent set of
cooperating network operators that fits with the definition of
controlled environments in [RFC8085].
For the purpose of this document, a Traffic-Managed Controlled
Environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP
network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g.,
via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant
portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086].
It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the
guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to
their VXLAN-GPE deployments
5.2. Congestion Control Functionality
VXLAN-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality
and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control.
As such VXLAN-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or
within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE).
An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion
by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data
traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity.
Keeping in mind the recommendation above, new encapsulated payloads,
when registered, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived
from Section 5 of [RFC9300]. Such new protocols should be designed
for explicit congestion signals to propagate consistently from lower-
layer protocols into IP. Then, the IP internetwork layer can act as
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
a portability layer to carry congestion notifications from non-IP-
aware congested nodes up to the transport layer (L4). By following
the guidelines in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines], subnetwork
designers can enable a Layer 2 protocol to participate in congestion
control without dropping packets, via propagation of Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN) data [RFC3168] to receivers.
5.3. UDP Checksum
For IP payloads, Section 5.3 of [RFC9300] specifies how to handle UDP
checksums, encouraging implementors to consider UDP checksum usage
guidelines in Section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to
protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption.
In order to protect the integrity of VXLAN-GPE headers, options, and
payload (for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different
tenant systems in case of data corruption), outer UDP checksum SHOULD
be used with VXLAN-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum
provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in
transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or
cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical-
layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see
Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists,
an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as
offered by IPSec.
An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum
if VXLAN-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity
mechanisms, such as IPsec or additional checksums, or if one of the
conditions in Section 5.3.1 (a, b, or c) are met.
5.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6
By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when VXLAN-GPE is transported
over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with a zero
UDP checksum if additional requirements described in this section are
met.
When VXLAN-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect
IPv6 headers, UDP headers and VXLAN-GPE headers and payload from
potential data corruption. As such by default VXLAN-GPE MUST use UDP
checksum when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to
configure to operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic
managed controlled environment as stated in Section 5.1 if one of the
following conditions are met:
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely
(perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay
network), and the operator is willing to take a risk of
undetected packet corruption
b. It is determined through observational measurements (perhaps
through historic or current traffic flows that use non zero
checksum) that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low
and where the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected
corruption
c. VXLAN-GPE payloads are carrying applications that are tolerant of
misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher-layer
checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission)
In addition VXLAN-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum
MUST meet the following requirements:
1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration
for all VXLAN-GPE tunnels
2. If VXLAN-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such
VTEP implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in
section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section
5 of [RFC6936]
3. The VTEP that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and
destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the VXLAN-GPE tunnel
that is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other
packets for which such check fails
4. The VTEP that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6
source addresses for each VXLAN-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP
checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of
the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not
to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address,
irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or
multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED
to use each source address for as few VXLAN-GPE tunnels that use
zero UDP checksum as is feasible
5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent VXLAN-GPE traffic over IPv6
with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet.
Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the
gateways or edge of a VXLAN-GPE network, and/or keeping logical
or physical separation of VXLAN network from networks carrying
General Internet
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
The above requirements do not change either the requirements
specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements
specified in [RFC6936].
The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the
destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of
source IPv6 addresses among VXLAN-GPE tunnels collectively provide
some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6
header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at
least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section
provides additional assurance.
5.4. DSCP, ECN, TTL, and 802.1Q
When encapsulating IP (including over Ethernet) packets, [RFC2983]
provides guidance for mapping packets that contain Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) information between inner and outer IP
headers. The Pipe model typically fits better with network
virtualization. The DSCP value on the tunnel header is set based on
a policy (which may be a fixed value, one based on the inner traffic
class, or some other mechanism for grouping traffic). Some aspects
of the Uniform model (which treats the inner and outer DSCP value as
a single field by copying on ingress and egress) may also apply, such
as the ability to remark the inner header on tunnel egress based on
transit marking. However, the Uniform model is not conceptually
consistent with network virtualization, which seeks to provide strong
isolation between encapsulated traffic and the physical network.
[RFC6040] describes the mechanism for exposing ECN capabilities on IP
tunnels and propagating congestion markers to the inner packets.
This behavior MUST be followed for IP packets encapsulated in VXLAN-
GPE.
Though the Uniform model or the Pipe model could be used for TTL (or
Hop Limit in the case of IPv6) handling when tunneling IP packets,
the Pipe model is more aligned with network virtualization.
[RFC2003] provides guidance on handling TTL between inner IP headers
and outer IP tunnels; this model is more aligned with the Pipe model
and is recommended for use with VXLAN-GPE for network-virtualization
applications.
When a VXLAN-GPE VTEP performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
802.1Q 3-bit Priority Code Point ('PCP') field [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] MAY
be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the DSCP codepoint of the
Differentiated Services ('DS') field defined in [RFC2474].
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
When a VXLAN-GPE VTEP performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner-
header 802.1Q VLAN Identifier (VID) [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] MAY be mapped
to, or used to determine, the 'VXLAN Network Identifier' (VNI) field.
Refer to Section 8 for considerations about the use of integrity
protection for deployments, such as the public Internet, concerned
with on-path attackers.
6. Backward Compatibility
6.1. VXLAN VTEP to VXLAN-GPE VTEP
A VXLAN VTEP conforms to VXLAN frame format and uses UDP destination
port 4789 when sending traffic to VXLAN-GPE VTEP. As per VXLAN,
reserved bits 5 and 7, VXLAN-GPE P and O-bits respectively must be
set to zero. The remaining reserved bits must be zero, including the
VXLAN-GPE version field, bits 2 and 3. The encapsulated payload MUST
be Ethernet.
6.2. VXLAN-GPE VTEP to VXLAN VTEP
A VXLAN-GPE VTEP MUST NOT encapsulate non-Ethernet frames to a VXLAN
VTEP. When encapsulating Ethernet frames to a VXLAN VTEP, the VXLAN-
GPE VTEP MUST conform to VXLAN frame format and hence will set the P
bit to 0, the Next Protocol to 0 and use UDP destination port 4789.
A VXLAN-GPE VTEP MUST also set O = 0 and Ver = 0 when encapsulating
Ethernet frames to VXLAN VTEP. The receiving VXLAN VTEP will treat
this packet as a VXLAN packet.
A method for determining the capabilities of a VXLAN VTEP (GPE or
non-GPE) is out of the scope of this draft.
6.3. VXLAN-GPE UDP Ports
VXLAN-GPE uses a IANA assigned UDP destination port, 4790, when
sending traffic to VXLAN-GPE VTEPs.
6.4. VXLAN-GPE and Encapsulated IP Header Fields
When encapsulating IP (including over Ethernet) packets [RFC2983]
provides guidance for mapping DSCP between inner and outer IP
headers. The Pipe model typically fits better Network
virtualization. The DSCP value on the tunnel header is set based on
a policy (which may be a fixed value, one based on the inner traffic
class, or some other mechanism for grouping traffic). Some aspects
of the Uniform model (which treats the inner and outer DSCP value as
a single field by copying on ingress and egress) may also apply, such
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
as the ability to remark the inner header on tunnel egress based on
transit marking. However, the Uniform model is not conceptually
consistent with network virtualization, which seeks to provide strong
isolation between encapsulated traffic and the physical network.
[RFC6040] describes the mechanism for exposing ECN capabilities on IP
tunnels and propagating congestion markers to the inner packets.
This behavior MUST be followed for IP packets encapsulated in VXLAN-
GPE.
Though Uniform or Pipe models could be used for TTL (or Hop Limit in
case of IPv6) handling when tunneling IP packets, Pipe model is more
aligned with network virtualization. [RFC2003] provides guidance on
handling TTL between inner IP header and outer IP tunnels; this model
is more aligned with the Pipe model and is recommended for use with
VXLAN-GPE for network virtualization applications.
When a VXLAN-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
802.1Q 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from the
encapsulated frame to the DSCP codepoint of the DS field defined in
[RFC2474].
When a VXLAN-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
header 802.1Q VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or used to
determine the VXLAN Network Identitifer (VNI) field.
7. VXLAN-GPE Examples
This section provides three examples of protocols encapsulated using
the Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN described in this document.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|0|0|I|1|R|0| Reserved | NP = IPv4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original IPv4 Packet |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: IPv4 and VXLAN-GPE
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|0|0|I|1|R|0| Reserved | NP = IPv6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original IPv6 Packet |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: IPv6 and VXLAN-GPE
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|0|0|I|1|R|0| Reserved |NP = Ethernet |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Original Ethernet Frame |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Ethernet and VXLAN-GPE
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations for VXLAN applies to VXLAN-GPE, see
[RFC7348].
As is the case for many encapsulations that use optional extensions,
VXLAN-GPE is subject to on-path adversaries that can make arbitrary
modifications to the packet (including the P-bit) to change or remove
any part of the payload, or claim to encapsulate any protocol payload
type. Typical integrity protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD
be used in combination with VXLAN-GPE by those protocol extensions
that want to protect against on-path attackers.
With VXLAN-GPE, issues such as data plane spoofing, flooding, and
traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
encapsulated.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
Operators have to make an assessment based on their network
environment and determine the risks that are applicable to their
specific environment and use appropriate mitigation approaches, as
applicable.
9. Contributors
Paul Quinn
Cisco Systems
paulq@cisco.com
Rajeev Manur
Broadcom
rmanur@broadcom.com
Michael Smith
Cisco Systems
michsmit@cisco.com
Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems
darlewis@cisco.com
Puneet Agarwal
Innovium, Inc
puneet@acm.org
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
lucy.yong@huawei.com
Xiaohu Xu
Alibaba Inc
xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
Pankaj Garg
Microsoft
pankajg@microsoft.com
David Melman
Marvell
davidme@marvell.com
Jennifer Lemon
Broadcom Limited
jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
10. Acknowledgments
A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
detailed review. Thanks to Tom Herbert for the suggestion to assign
codepoints for experimentations and testing.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. UDP Port
UDP 4790 port has been assigned by IANA for VXLAN-GPE in the "Service
Name and Transport Protocol Port Number" registry.
11.2. VXLAN-GPE Next Protocol
VXLAN-GPE 'Next Protocol' values are tracked by the IANA "LISP-GPE
Next Protocol" registry, defined in Section 6.1 of [RFC9305] that
VXLAN-GPE shares with LISP-GPE. New values are assigned under the
Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are
being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF Standards
Track protocols.
At the time this document is edited the IANA "LISP-GPE Next Protocol"
registry specifies the following Next Protocol values:
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
+===============+=============================+===========+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+===============+=============================+===========+
| 0x00 | Reserved | RFC 9305 |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x01 | IPv4 | RFC 9305 |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x02 | IPv6 | RFC 9305 |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x03 | Ethernet | RFC 9305 |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x04 | NSH | RFC 9305 |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x05..0x7D | Unassigned | |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x7E, 0x7F | Experimentation and testing | RFC 9305 |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0x80..0xFD | Unassigned (shim headers) | |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| 0xFE, 0xFF | Experimentation and testing | RFC 9305 |
| | (shim headers) | |
+---------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
Table 1
11.3. VXLAN-GPE Flag and Reserved Bits
There are ten flag bits at the beginning of the VXLAN-GPE header,
followed by 16 reserved bits and an 8-bit reserved field at the end
of the header. New bits are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].
Bits 0-1 - Reserve6
Bits 2-3 - Version
Bit 4 - Instance ID (I bit)
Bit 5 - Next Protocol (P bit)
Bit 6 - Reserved
Bit 7 - OAM (O bit)
Bit 8-23 - Reserved
Bits 24-31 in the 2nd Word -- Reserved
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
Reserved bits/fields MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by
the receiver.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[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>.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[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>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[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>.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[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>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[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>.
[RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>.
[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>.
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8365] Sajassi, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Bitar, N., Shekhar, R.,
Uttaro, J., and W. Henderickx, "A Network Virtualization
Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.
[RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.
[RFC9305] Maino, F., Ed., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Lewis, D., and M.
Smith, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Generic
Protocol Extension", RFC 9305, DOI 10.17487/RFC9305,
October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9305>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V. P., Pignataro,
C., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir,
A., Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE
Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-03, 4
November 2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-03>.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]
Briscoe, B. and J. Kaippallimalil, "Guidelines for Adding
Congestion Notification to Protocols that Encapsulate IP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-
encap-guidelines-20, 18 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-
ecn-encap-guidelines-20>.
Authors' Addresses
Fabio Maino (Editor)
Cisco Systems
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft VXLAN-GPE November 2023
Larry Kreeger (editor)
Arrcus
Email: lkreeger@gmail.com
Uri Elzur (editor)
Intel
Email: uri.elzur@intel.com
Maino, Ed., et al. Expires 8 May 2024 [Page 25]
