Network-Hexagons: H3-LISP GeoState & Mobility Network
draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | sbarkai@gmail.com , Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz , Rotem Tamir , AlbertoRodriguezNatal , Fabio Maino , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Dino Farinacci | ||
| Last updated | 2022-04-26 (Latest revision 2021-09-14) | ||
| Replaces | draft-barkai-lisp-nexagon | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Early review
(of
-04)
Not Ready
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Luigi Iannone | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2021-09-14 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | AD Evaluation | |
| Action Holder | |||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Send notices to | ggx@gigix.net |
draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19
LISP Working Group S. Barkai
Internet-Draft B. Fernandez-Ruiz
Intended status: Informational R. Tamir
Expires: January 1, 2022 Nexar Inc.
A. Rodriguez-Natal
F. Maino
Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos-Aparicio
J. Paillisse Vilanova
Technical University of Catalonia
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
September 14, 2021
Network-Hexagons: H3-LISP GeoState & Mobility Network
draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-19
Abstract
This document specifies the use of H3 and LISP for Geolocation
Services. Geolocation Services utilize geospatial data for:
Fresh HDMaps, Intelligent Driving, Cruise and Parking assists.
Geospatial utilization is delivered using in-network compute for
brokered verification, curation, and localization of data, using:
- EID addressable geospatial-tiles abstraction of road-segments.
- EID Interface for detections and uploads to the tile-contexts.
- EID Routing-Sharing hazards, blockages, parking, road-inventory.
- EID themed multicast channels per tile to subscribed clients.
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 January 1, 2022.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Mobility Clients Network Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Mobility Unicast and Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
splits IP addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint Identifiers
(EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses map-and-encap approach
(1) a Mapping System (distributed database) that stores and resolves
EID-RLOC mappings and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) encapsulating
and decapsulating data packets based on content of those mappings.
H3 (https://h3geo.org)is a geospatial indexing system using hexagonal
grid that can be subdivided into finer and finer hexagonal grids,
combining the benefits of a hexagonal grid with hierarchy.
H3 supports sixteen resolutions. Each finer resolution has cells with
1/7 the area of the coarser resolution. Hexagons cannot be perfectly
subdivided into seven hexagons, so the finer cells are approximately
contained within a parent cell. Each cell is identified by 64bit HID.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
The Berkeley Deep Drive (BDD) (https://bdd-data.berkeley.edu) Industry
Consortium investigates computer vision technologies for automotive
applications and for taxonomy of published automotive classification.
These standards are combined to create an in-network state reflecting
condition of each hexagonal tile (~1sqm) in every road. The mobility
H3-LISP network maps & encapsulates traffic between client endpoint
identifiers (EID) and addressable geospatial contexts (H3-HID=>EID).
The H3-LISP mobility network bridges timing and location gaps between
production and consumption of information by clients of mobility data:
o information producers: vision, sensory, LIADR, AI applications
o information consumers: driving-apps, map-apps, command & control
This is achieved by putting the physical world on a shared addressable
geospatial context-grid of road-segments represented at the edge.
Geospatial state sharing is done using this brokered-network of tile
representation, an indirection which solves key issues in v2v
information sharing. For example multiple vision perspectives, geo
privacy, cyber security. These challenges arise when clients are
asked to communicate directly when they do not really need to.
A communication pattern which causes complexity and exposures.
In non brokered v2v models, for a situation observable by some end
points, it is unclear if the need-to-know end-points will receive:
i. consistent, ii. conflicting, iii. multiple, or iv. no indications.
As an example, when a vehicle experiences a sudden highway slow-down,
sees brake lights or senses an accelerometer slowdown, there is no
clear way for it to share this data with vehicles 20-30sec away.
Or, when a vehicle crosses an intersection, observing opposite-lane
obstruction such as: construction, double-park, commercial loading,
garbage truck, or stopped school-bus.. there is no clear way for it
to alert approachers from another direction as it drives away.
Geospatial context indirection helps communicate advanced vision and
radar annotations. As these are evolving technologies, relaying road
enumerations using peer-to-peer poses interoperability challenges.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
These peer-to-peer limitations are inherent yet unnecessary, in most
situations vehicles are not really proper peers. They happen to be in
the same place at the same time. H3-LISP mobility network solves the
limitations of direct vehicle-to-vehicle communication by brokering
exchanges using addressable geospatial context. Bridging timing,
security, privacy, and interoperability gaps between endpoints.
Brokering is achieved by clients communicating via context,
addressable tiles which aggregated and relay data using H3 EIDs.
Clients can provide drivers with heads-up alerts on hazards/obstacles
beyond the line of sight of driver and in-car sensors: over traffic,
around blocks, far-side junction, beyond road turns or curvatures.
This highlights the importance of networks for road safety
and role in Autonomous Vehicle (AV) operation support (AV-OSS).
To summarize the H3-LISP mobility solution principles are:
(1) Problem Partition: 64bit H3.r15 ID road-tiles for detections
(2) Enumerated State: 64bit values of tile condition representation
(3) Grouping: EID per H3.r9 geo-context for its H3.r15 road-tiles
(4) Group Channels: H3.r9 EIDs mcast address for geo-state updates
(5) Scale: EID addressable contexts distributed on edge servers
(6) Overlay: tunneled-network routes the mobility-network traffic
(7) Signal-free: overlay is used to map-register for mcast channels
(8) Layering: overlay tunnels used between clients and geo-contexts
(9) Access: client/server XTRs tunnel traffic to-from the LISP RTRs
(10) Control: RTRs register-resolve H3 EIDs and mcast subscriptions
|-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-|
| H3 Hexagon ID Key |
|-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-|
| H3 Hexagon State-Value |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
Figure 1: 64 bit H3 ID, 64 bit compiled state value
Each H3.r9 hexagon is an EID context with corresponding H3 hexagon ID.
Bound to that context is a LISP xTR specified to encapsulate packets
to and from EID context and LISP Edge. Edge RTRs are used to re
-tunnel packets from clients to services. Each service is also a
multicast source for updating clients on the state of the H3.r15
tiles, aggregated by the EID addressable geospatial context.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
2. Definition of Terms
H3ServiceEID: Is an addressable aggregation of H3.r15 tiles.
It functions as geospatial data association context for filtering,
verifying, localizing, and propagating vehicles data uploads.
It is a designated destination for physical world annotations,
and an (s,g) source of multicast themed update channels.
H3ServiceEID is itself an H3 hexagon, large enough to provide
geo-spatial compute context, but not too large as to over-burden
subscribers with too much information. For Mobility Network it is
H3.r9. It has a light-weight LISP protocol stack to tunnel packets
aka ServerXTR. The EID is an IPv6 EID that contains the H3 64-bit
address numbering scheme.
ServerXTR: Is a data-plane only LISP protocol stack implementation, it
co-exists with H3ServiceEID process. When the server roams, the xTR
is with it. ServerXTR encaps & decaps packets to/from EdgeRTRs.
MobilityClient: Is a roaming application that may be a part of an
automobile, part of a navigation application, part of municipal,
state or federal government command and control application, or a
street view consumer application. It has a light-weight LISP
data-plane stack to tunnel packets, aka ClientXTR.
MobilityClient EID: Is the IPv6 EID used by the Mobility Clients
to source packets. The destination of such packets are only
H3ServiceEIDs. The EID format is opaque and is assigned as
part of the MobilityClient mobility-network authorization.
ClientXTR: Is a data-plane only LISP protocol stack implementation
co-located with the Mobility Client application. It encaps/
decaps packets from/to applications to/from EdgeRTRs.
EdgeRTR: Is the core scale and structure of the LISP mobility network.
EdgeRTRs proxy H3ServiceEIDs and MobilityClient H3ServiceEID mcast
registration. EdgeRTRs aggregate MobilityClients/H3Services using
tunnels to facilitate hosting-providers and mobile-providers for
accessing the mobility network. EdgeRTRs decapsulate packets
from ClientXTRs, ServerXTRs and re-encaps packets to the clients
and servers tunnels. EdgeRTRs glean H3ServiceEIDs/MobilityClient
EIDs when they decapsulates packets. EdgeRTRs store H3ServiceEIDs
and RLOCs of where the H3ServiceEID is currently reachable from
the map-cache. These mappings are registered to the LISP mapping.
These mappings may be provisioned when H3Services are assigned
EdgeRTRs. EdgeRTRs do not register MobilityClients' EIDs.
Enterprises may provide their own EdgeRTRs to protect geo-privacy.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
___ ___
H3ServiceEIDs ___ / \ H3ServiceEIDs ___ / \
___ / | H3.r9 | ___ / | H3.r9 |
/ | H3.r9 \ ___ / / | H3.r9 \ ___ /
| H3.r9 \ ___ / sXTR | H3.r9 \ ___ / sXTR
\ ___ / sXTR | \ ___ / sXTR |
sXTR | | sXTR | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+ - - + - - EdgeRTR EdgeRTR - + - + - - +
|| ( ( (( ||
( )
( Network Hexagons )
( H3-LISP )
( Mobility Network )
(( )
|| (( (()) () ||
|| ||
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
|| ||
EdgeRTR EdgeRTR
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
((((|)))) ((((|)))) ((((|)))) ((((|))))
/|\ RAN /|\ /|\ RAN /|\
.. ..
.. ..
.. Road tiled by 1 sqm H3.r15 ID-Ed Geo-States ..
.. ..
.. ___ ___ ___ ..
.. ............. / \/ \/ \ << cXTR::MobilityClientB
.. - - - - - - - H3.r15 H3.r15 H3.r15 - - - - - - - - - - - -
MobilityClientA::cXTR >> \ ___ /\ ___ / .......................
Figure 2: H3.r15 state representation, H3.r9 state aggregation
Figure 2 above describes the following entities:
- MobilityClientA sees MobilityClientB future, and, vice versa
- Clients: share information using addressable state routed by LISP
- ClientXTR (cXTR): encapsulates over access network to EdgeRTR
- ServerXTR (sXTR): encapsulates over cloud network to EdgeRTR
- H3-LISP Mobility: overlay which spans cXTRs to sXTRs
- Uploads: routed to appropriate tile by the LISP network
- EdgeRTRs: perform multicast replication to edges and then cXTRs
- Clients: receive tile-by-tile geo-state updates via the multicast
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
3. Deployment Assumptions
The specification described in this document makes the following
deployment assumptions:
(1) Unique 64-bit HID is associated with each H3 geo-spatial tile
(2) MobilityClients and H3ServiceEIDs share this well known index
(3) 64-bit BDD state value is associated with each H3-indexed tile
(4) Tile state is compiled 16 fields of 4-bits, or max 16 enums
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-|
|0123012301230123012301230123012301230123012301230123012301230123
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: Nibble based representation, 16 fields x 16 enumerations
We name the nibbles using hexadecimal index according to the
position where the most significant nibble has index 0.
Values are defined in section 8.
Subscription of MobilityClients to mobility-network is renewed
while on the move and is not intended as the basic connectivity.
MobilityClients use DNS/AAA to obtain temporary EIDs/EdgeRTRs
and use (LISP) data-plane tunnels to communicate using their
temporary EIDs with the dynamically assigned EdgeRTRs.
MobilityClient are otherwise unaware of the LISP network control
plane and simply regard the data-plane tunnels as a virtual
private network (VPN) that supports IPv6 EID to upload (Ucast)
and Subscribe-to (Mcast) H3Services.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
In order to get access to the MobilityVPN, MobilityClients first
authenticate with the MobilityVPN AAA Server. DIAMETER [RFC6733]
based AAA is typically done at the provider edge (PE) by gateways.
However, the typical case involves several types of CPE connected
to a specific service provider. On other hand, the Mobility VPN
may overlay a number of wireless networks and cloud-edge providers.
It also involves dozens of Car-OEM, Driving-Applications, Smart-
City vendors. This is why we require clients to first go through
AAA in order to get both a MobilityClientEID and EdgeRTR RLOC.
ClientXTR performs the following steps to use the mobility network:
1) obtain the address of the mobility network AAA server using DNS
2) obtain MobilityClientEID and EdgeRTR(s) from AAA DIAMETER server
3) renew authorization from AAA while using the mobility network
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
MobilityClient DomainNameServer DIAMETER-AAA MobilityEdgeRTR
| | | |
| nslookup nexagon | | |
|------------------->| | |
|<-------------------| | |
| Mobility AAA IP | | |
| | | |
| AAR(AVP:IMSI/User/Password/Toyota) | |
|--------------------------------------->| |
| | | ACR(AVP ClientEID)|
| | |------------------>|
| | |<------------------|
| | | ACA(AVP ClientEID)|
| AAA (Client::EID,EdgeRTR::RLOC) | |
|<---------------------------------------| |
| | | |
. .
. Upload to IPv6 H3ServiceEID, Subscribe MLDv2 H3ServiceEID .
. .
| |
|----------------------------------------------------------->|
. .
. .
|<-----------------------------------------------------------|
| |
. .
. Signal freeing multicast Updates from H3ServiceEID .
. .
| | | |
| AAR(Interim) | |
|--------------------------------------->| ACR (Interim) |
| | |------------------>|
| | |<------------------|
| | | ACA (Interim) |
|<---------------------------------------| |
| AAA (Interim) | |
Figure 4: DNS and AAA Exchange for nexagon-network login
Using this network login and re-login method we ensure that:
- MobilityClientEIDs serve as credentials with the EdgeRTRs
- EdgeRTRs are provisioned to whitelist MobilityClient EIDs
- EdgeRTRs are not tightly coupled to H3.r9 areas (privacy/balance)
- MobilityClients do not need to update EdgeRTRs while roaming
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
The same EdgeRTR may serve several H3.r9 areas for ride continuity
and several EdgeRTRs may load balance an H3.r9 area with high
density of MobilityClients. When a MobilityClient ClientXTR is
homed to EdgeRTR, it is able to communicate with H3ServiceEIDs.
4. Mobility Clients Network Services
The mobility network functions as a standard LISP overlay.
The overlay delivers unicast and multicast packets across:
- multiple access-networks and radio-access specifications
- multiple edge providers, public, private, and hybrid clouds
We use data-plane XTRs in the stack of each mobility client/server.
ClientXTRs and ServerXTRs are homed to one or more EdgeRTRs.
This structure allows for MobilityClients to "show up" at any time,
behind any network provider in a given mobility network admin/NAT
domain, and for any H3ServiceEID to be instantiated, moved, or
failed-over to any rack in any cloud-provider. LISP overlay enables
these roaming mobility network elements to communicate uninterrupted.
This quality is insured by the LISP RFCs. The determination of
identities for MobilityClients to always refer to the correct
H3ServiceEID is insured by H3 geo-spatial HIDs.
There are two options to associate ClientXTRs with LISP EdgeRTRs:
i. Semi-random load-balancing by DNS/AAA
In this option we assume that in a given metro edge a pool of
EdgeRTRs can distribute the Mobility Clients load randomly between
them and that EdgeRTRs are topologically equivalent. Each RTR uses
LISP to tunnel traffic to and from other EdgeRTRs for MobilityClient
with H3Service exchanges. MobilityClients home to EdgeRTRs.
ii. Topological by anycast
In this option we align an EdgeRTR with topological aggregation.
Mobility Clients are roaming in an area home to that RTR and so
is the H3 Server. There is only one hop across the edge overlay
between clients and servers and mcast replication is more
focused, but clients need to keep re-homing as they move.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
To summarize the H3LISP mobility network layout:
(1) Mobility-Clients traffic is tunneled via data-plane ClientXTRs
ClientXTRs are (multi) homed to EdgeRTR(s)
(2) H3ServiceEID traffic is tunneled via data-plane ServerXTR
ServerXTRs are (multi) homed to EdgeRTR(s)
(3) EdgeRTRs use mapping service to resolve Ucast HIDs to RTR RLOCs
EdgeRTRs also register to (Source, Group) H3ServiceEID multicasts
MobilityClients <> ClientXTR <Access Provider > EdgeRTR v
v
v < < < < Map-Assisted Mobility-Network Overlay < < < < v
v
> > > > EdgeRTR <Cloud Provider> ServerXTR <> H3ServiceEID
Figure 5: The Data Flow Between MobilityClients and H3ServiceEIDs
5. Mobility Unicast and Multicast
Regardless of the way a given ClientXTR was associated with EdgeRTR,
an authenticated MobilityClient EID can send: [64bitH3.15ID ::
64bitState]annotations to the H3.r9 H3ServiceEID. The H3.r9 EID can
be calculated by clients algorithmically from the H3.15 localization.
The ClientXTR encapsulates MobilityClient EID and H3ServiceEID from
the ClientXTR with the destination of the EdgeRTR RLOC LISP port.
EdgeRTRs then re-encapsulate annotation packets to remote EdgeRTR.
The remote EdgeRTR aggregating H3ServiceEIDs re-encapsulates
MobilityClient EID to the ServerXTR, to the H3ServiceEID.
The headers consist of the following fields:
Outer headers = 40 (IPv6) + 8 (UDP) + 8 (LISP) = 56
Inner headers = 40 (IPv6) + 8 (UDP) + 4 (Nexagon Header) = 52
1500 (MTU) - 56 - 52 = 1392 bytes of effective payload
Nexagon Header Type allows for kv tupples or vkkk flooding
Type 0:reserved
Type 1:key-value, key-value.. 1392 / (8 + 8) = 87 pairs
Type 2:value, key,key,key.. (1392 - 8) / 8 = 173 H3-R15 IDs
Type 3-255: unassigned
Nexagon Header GZIP field: 0x000 no compression, or GZIP version.
Nexagon Header Reserved bits
Nexagon Header kv count (in any format)
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
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| Traffic Class | Flow Label | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Source MobilityClientEID + |
| | IPv6
+ + |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Dest H3ServiceEID + |
| | |
+ + |
| | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = xxxx | \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| Type |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X| Nexgon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Uploaded detections packet format
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
To Summarize Unicast Uploads:
(1) MobilityClients can send annotations are localized to H3.r15
tile. These annotations are sent to H3.r9 mobility H3ServiceEIDs
(2) MobilityClient EID and H3ServiceEID HID are encapsulated:
XTR <> RTR <> RTR <> XTR
* RTRs can map-resolve re-tunnel HIDs
(3) RTRs re-encapsulate original source-dest to ServerXTRs
ServerXTRs decapsulate packets to H3ServiceEID
Each H3.r9 Server is also an IP Multicast Source used to update
subscribers on the aggregate state of the H3.r15 tiles in the H3.r9
server. This forms a multipoint to multipoint state channel per H3
location, where the aggregation has compute-first propagation.
We use [RFC8378] signal-free multicast to implement mcast channels in
the overlay. The mobility network has many channels, with thousands
subscribers per channel. MobilityClients driving through/subscribing
to an H3.r9 area can explicitly issue an [RFC4604] MLDv2 in order to
subscribe, or, may be subscribed implicitly by the EdgeRTR.
The advantage of explicit client MLDv2 registration as [RFC8378]
trigger is that clients manage their own mobility mcast handover per
location-direction vectors, and that it allows for otherwise silent
non annotating clients. The advantage of EdgeRTR implicit registration
is that less signaling required.
MLDv2 signaling messages are encapsulated between the ClientXTR and
EdgeRTR, therefore there is no requirement for the underlying network
to support native multicast. If native access multicast is supported
then MobilityClient registration to H3ServiceEID safety channels may
be integrated with it, in which case mobile packet-core element
supporting it will use this standard to register with the
appropriate H3.r9 channels in its area.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
Multicast update packets are of the following structure:
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| Traffic Class | Flow Label | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Source H3-R9 EID Address + |
| | IPv6
+ + |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Group Address + |
| | |
+ + |
| | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = xxxx | \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| |Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
~ Nexagons Payload ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Mcast update packet header
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
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 = 1 |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Mcast update payload, key-value, key-value..
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
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 = 2 |gzip | Reserved |H3R15 Count = X|Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| |
+ 64 Bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64 Bit H3-R15 ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Mcast update payload, value, key, key.. for larger areas
The remote EdgeRTRs homing MobilityClients in turn replicate the
packet to the MobilityClients registered with them.
We expect an average of 600 H3.r15 tiles of the full 7^6 (~100K)
possible in H3.r9 to be part of any road. The H3.r9 server can
transmit the status of all 600 or just those with meaningful states
based on updated SLA and policy.
To Summarize:
(1) H3LISP Clients tune to H3.r9 mobility updates using [RFC8378]
H3LISP Client issue MLDv2 registration to H3.r9 HIDs
ClientXTRs encapsulate MLDv2 to EdgeRTRs who register (s,g).
(2) ServerXTRs encapsulate updates to EdgeRTRs who map-resolve (s,g)
RLOCs EdgeRTRs replicate mobility update and tunnel to registered
EdgeRTRs Remote EdgeRTRs replicate updates to ClientXTRs.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
6. Security Considerations
The nexagon layer3 v2n network is inherently more secure and private
then peer to peer alternatives because of the indirection. No car or
infrastructure element communicates directly with MobilityClients.
All information is conveyed using shared addressable geo-state.
MobilityClients receive information only from geospatial channels
originating from a trusted broker. MobilityClients have no indication
as to the origin of the information. This is an important step towards
better privacy, security, extendability, and interoperability compared
with legacy layer2 protocols.
In order to be able to use the nexagon mobility network for a given
period, the mobility clients go through a DNS/AAA stage by which they
obtain their clientEID identifiers-credentials and the RLOCs of
EdgeRTRs they may use as gateways to the network. This MobilityClient
<> EdgeRTR interface is the most sensitive in this network to privacy
and security considerations.
The traffic on the MobilityClient<>EdgeRTR interface is tunneled, and
its UDP content may be encrypted; still, the EdgeRTR will know based
on the LISP headers alone the MobilityClient RLOC and H3-R9 (~0.1sqkm)
geo-spatial area to which a given client uploads or subscribes to.
For this reason we envision the ability of enterprise or groups of
users to "bring their own" EdgeRTRs. BYO-RTR masks individual clients'
RLOC to H3-R9 association and is pre-provisioned to be able to use the
mapping system and be on a white-list of EdgeRTRs aggregating
H3ServiceEIDs. If the EdgeRTR functionality is delivered by 5GCore UPF
then the only entity which can correlate underlay IP, User, and Geo-
location is the regulated carrier, which can do so anyway.
Beyond this hop, the mapping system does not hold MobilityClientEIDs,
and remote EdgeRTRs are only aware of MobilityClient ephemeral EIDs,
not actual RLOC or any other mobile-device identifiers. EdgeRTRs
register in the mapping (s,g) H3-R9 multicast groups. Which clients
use which EdgeRTR is not in the mapping system, only the AAA server is
aware of that. The H3ServiceEIDs themselves decrypt and parse actual
H3-R15 annotations; they also consider during this MobilityClientEID
credentials to avoid "fake-news", but again these are only temporary
EIDs allocated to clients in order to be able to use the mobility
network and not for their actual IP.
H3Services are provisioned to their EdgeRTRs, in the EdgeRTRs, and
optionally also in the mapping system.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
In summary of main risk mitigations for the lisp-nexagon interface:
(1) tapping: all communications are through dynamic tunnels therefore
may be encrypted using IP-Sec or other supported point to point
underlay standards. These are not static tunnels but LISP re-tunneling
routers (RTRs) perform all nexagon Overlay aggregation.
(2) spoofing: it is very hard to guess a MobilityClientEID valid for
a short period of time. Clients and H3Services EIDs are whitelisted
in EdgeRTRs, Clients using the AAA procedure, H3Services via dev-ops.
(3) impersonating: efforts to use MobilityClients and H3Services RLOCs
should be caught by the underlying service provider edge and access
networks. EID impersonating is caught by EdgeRTR EID RLOC whitelist
mismatch.
(4) credibility: the interface crowd-sources geo-state and does not
assume to trust single detections. Credit history track to
MobilityClientEIDs by as part of normal H3Services fact checking,
aggregate scores affect AAA credentials.
(5) privacy: Only EdgeRTRs are aware of both clients' RLOC and
geo-location, only AAA is aware of client IDs credentials and credit
but not geo-location. Aggregate credit score span all H3Services
administratively without source.
7. Acknowledgments
We would like to kindly thank Joel Halperin for helping structure the
AAA section and Geo-Privacy provisions, Luigi Lannone for promoting
such LISP Compute First Networking (CFN) use-cases, helping structure
the IANA section, and shepherding this draft to completion.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
8. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the LISP
specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
IANA is asked to create a registry named NEXAGON Parameters.
Such registry should be populated with the following sub registries.
State Enumeration Field 0x0: Traffic Direction:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Lane North | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Lane North + 30 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Lane North + 60 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Lane North + 90 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Lane North + 120 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Lane North + 150 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Lane North + 180 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Lane North + 210 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Lane North + 240 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Lane North + 270 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Lane North + 300 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Lane North + 330 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Junction | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Shoulder | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Sidewalk | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x1: Persistent Condition:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Pothole Light | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Pothole Deep | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Speed-bump Low | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Speed-bump High | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Icy | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Flooded | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Snow-cover | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Deep Snow | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Cone | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Gravel | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Choppy | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Blind-Curve | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Steep | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Low-bridge | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Other | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x2: Transient Condition:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Jaywalker | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Bike or Scooter | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Stopped Vehicle | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Moving on Shoulder | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | First Responder | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Sudden Slowdown | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Oversize Vehicle | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Light/Sign Breach | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Collision Light | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Collision Severe | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Collision Debris | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Collision Course | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Vehicle Hard Brake | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Vehicle Sharp Turn | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Freed-up Parking | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x3: Traffic-light Counter:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | 1 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | 2 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | 3 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | 4 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | 5 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | 6 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | 7 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | 8 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | 9 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | 10 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | 20 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | 30 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | 60 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Green Now | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Red Now | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x4: Impacted Tile:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Epicenter | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | 2 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | 3 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | 4 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | 5 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | 6 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | 7 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | 8 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | 9 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | 10 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | 20 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | 30 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | 60 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | <100 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | <200 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x5: Expected Duration:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Next 1 Second | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Next 5 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Next 10 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Next 20 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Next 40 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Next 60 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Next 2 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Next 3 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Next 4 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Next 5 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Next 10 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Next 15 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Next 30 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Next 60 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Next 24 Hours | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x6: Lane Right Sign:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Yield | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Speed Limit | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Straight Only | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | No Straight | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Right Only | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | No Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Left Only | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | No Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Right Straight | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Left Straight | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | No U Turn | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | No Left or U | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Bike Lane | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | HOV Lane | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Stop | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x7: Movement Sign:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Keep Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Keep Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Stay in Lane | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Do Not Enter | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | No Trucks | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | No Bikes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | No Peds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | One Way | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Parking | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | No Parking | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | No Standing | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | No Passing | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Loading Zone | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Rail Crossing | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | School Zone | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x8: Curves & Intersections:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Turns Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Turns Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Curves Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Curves Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Reverses Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Reverses Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Winding Road | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Hair Pin | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Pretzel Turn | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Cross Roads | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Cross T | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Cross Y | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Circle | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Lane Ends | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Road Narrows | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0x9: Tile Traffic Speed:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | < 1 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | < 2 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | < 3 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | < 4 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | < 5 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | < 6 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | < 7 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | < 8 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | < 9 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | < 10 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | < 20 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | < 30 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | < 40 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | < 50 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | > 50 m/sec | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
State Enumeration Field 0xA: Pedestrian Curb Density:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | 100% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | 95% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | 90% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | 85% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | 80% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | 70% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | 60% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | 50% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | 40% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | 30% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | 20% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | 15% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | 10% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | 5% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | No Peds | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
State enumeration fields 0xB, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF, are unassigned.
IANA can assign them on a "First Come First Served" basis
according to [RFC8126].
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
9. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress),
September 2020.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H. Cain, B. Haberman, B., "Using Internet Group
Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener DiscoveryProtocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for
Source-Specific Multicast", RFC4604,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4604, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4604>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., Narten, T., "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC8126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8378] Farinacci, D., Moreno, V., "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
Authors' Addresses
Sharon Barkai
Nexar
CA
USA
Email: sbarkai@gmail.com
Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz
Nexar
London
UK
Email: b@getnexar.com
Rotem Tamir
Nexar
Israel
rotemtamir@getnexar.com
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: natal@cisco.com
Fabio Maino
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft LISP September 2021
Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
Technical University of Catalonia
Barcelona
Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Jordi Paillisse-Vilanova
Technical University of Catalonia
Barcelona
Spain
Email: jordip@ac.upc.edu
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Barkai, et al. Expires January 1, 2022 [Page 32]