Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Sharon Barkai , Mohamed Boucadair | ||
| Last updated | 2022-04-25 (Latest revision 2021-06-28) | ||
| Replaces | draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Experimental | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Early review
(of
-06)
Has Nits
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Luigi Iannone | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2021-07-19 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Action Holders | |||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Send notices to | ggx@gigix.net |
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Experimental V. Ermagan
Expires: December 30, 2021 Google
A. Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech
S. Barkai
Nexar
M. Boucadair
Orange
June 28, 2021
Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
Abstract
This document specifies an extension to the Request/Reply based LISP
Control Plane to enable Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation.
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 December 30, 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
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
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. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Map-Request PubSub Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Security Association between ITR and MS . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. DDoS Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] splits current IP addresses in two
different namespaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing
Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map-and-encap approach that relies on
(1) a Mapping System (basically a distributed database) that stores
and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings and on (2) LISP tunnel routers
(xTRs) that encapsulate and decapsulate data packets based on the
content of those mappings.
Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) / Re-encapsulating Tunnel Routers
(RTRs) / Proxy Ingress Tunnel Routers (PITRs) pull EID-to-RLOC
mapping information from the Mapping System by means of an explicit
request message. Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] indicates
how Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) can tell ITRs/RTRs/PITRs about
mapping changes. This document presents a Publish/Subscribe (PubSub)
extension in which the Mapping System can notify ITRs/RTRs/PITRs
about mapping changes. When this mechanism is used, mapping changes
can be notified faster and can be managed in the Mapping System
versus the LISP sites.
In general, when an ITR/RTR/PITR wants to be notified for mapping
changes for a given EID-prefix, the following steps occur:
(1) The ITR/RTR/PITR sends a Map-Request for that EID-prefix.
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
(2) The ITR/RTR/PITR sets the Notification-Requested bit (N-bit) on
the Map-Request and includes its xTR-ID and Site-ID.
(3) The Map-Request is forwarded to one of the Map-Servers that the
EID-prefix is registered to.
(4) The Map-Server creates subscription state for the ITR/RTR/PITR
on the EID-prefix.
(5) The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify to the ITR/RTR/PITR to
acknowledge the successful subscription.
(6) When there is a change in the mapping of the EID-Prefix, the
Map-Server sends a Map-Notify message to each ITR/RTR/PITR in
the subscription list.
(7) Each ITR/RTR/PITR sends a Map-Notify-Ack to acknowledge the
received Map-Notify.
This operation is repeated for all EID-prefixes for which ITR/RTR/
PITR want to be notified. The ITR/RTR/PITR can set the N-bit for
several EID-prefixes within a single Map-Request.
2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Deployment Assumptions
The specification described in this document makes the following
deployment assumptions:
(1) A unique 128-bit xTR-ID (plus a 64-bit Site-ID) identifier is
assigned to each xTR.
(2) Map-Servers are configured in proxy-reply mode, i.e., they are
solicited to generate and send Map-Reply messages for the
mappings they are serving.
The distribution of xTR-IDs (and Site-IDs) are out of the scope of
this document.
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
4. Map-Request PubSub Additions
Figure 1 shows the format of the updated Map-Request to support the
PubSub functionality.
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 |A|M|P|S|p|s|R|I| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI n | ITR-RLOC Address n ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |N| Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI |
Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | EID-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Map-Reply Record ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ xTR-ID +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Site-ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Map-Request with I-bit, N-bit, xTR-ID, and Site-ID
The following is added to the Map-Request message defined in
Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]:
xTR-ID bit (I-bit): This bit is set to 1 to indicate that a 128
bit xTR-ID and a 64 bit Site-ID fields are present at the end of
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
the Map-Request message. For PubSub operation, an xTR MUST be
configured with an xTR-ID and Site-ID, and it MUST set the I bit
to 1 and include its xTR-ID and Site-ID in the Map-Request
messages it generates.
Notification-Requested bit (N-bit): The N-bit of an EID-record is
set to 1 to specify that the xTR wants to be notified of updates
for that mapping record.
xTR-ID field: xTR-ID is a 128 bit field at the end of the Map-
Request message, starting after the final Record in the message
(or the Map-Reply Record, if present). The xTR-ID is used to
uniquely identify the sender of a Map-Request message. The xTR-ID
is defined in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Site-ID field: Site-ID is a 64 bit field at the end of the Map-
Request message, following the xTR-ID. Site-ID is used by the
Map-Server receiving the Map-Request message to identify which
xTRs belong to the same site. The Site-ID is defined in
Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures
The xTR subscribes for changes for a given EID-prefix by sending a
Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the EID-
Record. The xTR builds a Map-Request according to Section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] but also does the following:
(1) The xTR MUST set the I-bit to 1 and append its xTR-ID and Site-
ID to the Map-Request. The xTR-ID uniquely identifies the xTR.
(2) The xTR MUST set the N-bit to 1 for each EID-Record to which the
xTR wants to subscribe.
The Map-Request is forwarded to the appropriate Map-Server through
the Mapping System. This document does not assume that a Map-Server
is pre-assigned to handle the subscription state for a given xTR.
The Map-Server that receives the Map-Request will be the Map-Server
responsible to notify that specific xTR about future mapping changes
for the subscribed mapping records.
Upon receipt of the Map-Request, the Map-Server processes it as
described in Section 8.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Furthermore,
upon processing, for each EID-Record that has the N-bit set to 1, the
Map-Server proceeds to add the xTR-ID contained in the Map-Request to
the list of xTRs that have requested to be subscribed to that mapping
record.
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
If the xTR-ID is added to the list, the Map-Server MUST send a Map-
Notify message back to the xTR to acknowledge the successful
subscription. The Map-Server MUST follow the specification in
Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify
with the following considerations:
(1) The Map-Server MUST use the nonce from the Map-Request as the
nonce for the Map-Notify.
(2) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR
(see Section 7.1) to compute the authentication data of the Map-
Notify.
(3) The Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to one of the ITR-RLOCs
received in the Map-Request (which one is implementation
specific).
When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce that matches one in
the list of outstanding Map-Request messages sent with an N-bit set,
it knows that the Map-Notify is to acknowledge a successful
subscription. The xTR processes this Map-Notify as described in
Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following
considerations. The xTR MUST use its security association with the
Map-Server (see Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on
the Map-Notify. The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map-
cache with the returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set.
The subscription of an xTR-ID to the list of subscribers for the EID-
Record may fail for a number of reasons. For example, because of
local configuration policies (such as accept and drop lists of
subscribers), or because the Map-Server has exhausted the resources
to dedicate to the subscription of that EID-Record (e.g., the number
of subscribers excess the capacity of the Map-Server).
If the subscription fails, the Map-Server MUST send a Map-Reply to
the originator of the Map-Request, as described in Section 8.3 of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The xTR processes the Map-Reply as
specified in Section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
If an xTR-ID is successfully added to the list of subscribers for an
EID-Record, the Map-Server MUST extract the nonce and ITR-RLOCs
present in the Map-Request, and store the association between the
EID-Record, xTR-ID, ITR-RLOCs and nonce. Any already present state
regarding ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be
overwritten.
The following specifies the procedure to remove a subscription. If
the Map-Request only has one ITR-RLOC with AFI = 0 (i.e., Unknown
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
Address), the Map-Server MUST remove the subscription state for that
xTR-ID. In this case, the Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to the
source RLOC of the Map-Request.
When an EID-Record is removed from the Map-Server (either when
explicitly withdrawn or when its TTL expires), the Map-Server
notifies its subscribers (if any) via a Map-Notify with TTL equal 0.
6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures
The publish procedure is implemented via Map-Notify messages that the
Map-Server sends to xTRs. The xTRs acknowledge the reception of Map-
Notifies via sending Map-Notify-Ack messages back to the Map-Server.
The complete mechanism works as follows.
When a mapping stored in a Map-Server is updated (e.g., via a Map-
Register from an ETR), the Map-Server MUST notify the subscribers of
that mapping via sending Map-Notify messages with the most updated
mapping information. The Map-Notify message sent to each of the
subscribers as a result of an update event MUST follow the exact
encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following:
(1) The Map-Notify MUST be sent to one of the ITR-RLOCs associated
with the xTR-ID of the subscriber (which one is implementation
specific).
(2) The Map-Server increments the nonce by one every time it sends a
Map-Notify as publication to an xTR-ID for a particular EID-
Record. The starting nonce is set as follows, if the
subscription state at the Map-Server was created by a received
Map-Request with the N-bit set, the starting nonce in the Map-
Notify sent as publication MUST be the one used in the Map-
Request that created the subscription state. If the
subscription state was created by explicit configuration at the
Map-Server (possible when a pre-shared security association
exists, see Section 7), the starting nonce in the Map-Notify
sent as publication MUST be randomly generated by the Map-
Server.
(3) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR to
compute the authentication data of the Map-Notify.
When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID not local to the xTR,
the xTR knows that the Map-Notify has been received to update an
entry on its map-cache. Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify
messages MUST be explicitly enabled via configuration at the xTR.
The xTR MUST keep track of the last nonce seen in a Map-Notify
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
received as a publication from the Map-Server for the EID-Record. If
a Map-Notify received as a publication has a nonce value that is not
greater than the saved nonce, the xTR drops the Map-Notify message
and logs the fact a replay attack could have occurred. To compare
two nonces, the xTR uses the serial number arithmetic defined in
[RFC1982] with SERIAL_BITS = 64. The nonce field space (64 bits) is
considered large enough to not be depleted during normal operation of
the protocol (e.g., assuming a fast publication rate of one Map-
Notify per EID-Record per Map-Server per second, the nonce field
space will not be depleted in 0.5 trillion years). The same
considerations discussed in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
regarding storing Map-Register nonces apply here for Map-Notify
nonces.
The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in Section 5.7
of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations.
The xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see
Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify.
The xTR MUST use the mapping information carried in the Map-Notify to
update its internal map-cache. The xTR MUST acknowledge the Map-
Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack (specified in Section 5.7 of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]), with the nonce from the Map-Notify, to
the Map-Server. If after a configurable timeout, the Map-Server has
not received back the Map-Notify-Ack, it can try to send the Map-
Notify to a different ITR-RLOC for that xTR-ID. If the Map-Server
tries all the ITR-RLOCs without receiving a response, it may stop
trying to send the Map-Notify.
7. Security Considerations
Generic security considerations related to LISP control messages are
discussed in Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
In the particular case of PubSub, cache poisoning via malicious Map-
Notify messages is avoided by the use of nonce and the security
association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers.
7.1. Security Association between ITR and MS
Since Map-Notifies from the Map-Server to the ITR need to be
authenticated, there is a need for a soft-state or hard-state
security association (e.g. a PubSubKey) between the ITRs and the Map-
Servers. For some controlled deployments, it might be possible to
have a shared PubSubKey (or set of keys) between the ITRs and the
Map-Servers. However, if pre-shared keys are not used in the
deployment, LISP-SEC [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] can be used as follows to
create a security association between the ITR and the MS.
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
First, when the ITR is sending a Map-Request with the N-bit set
following Section 5, the ITR also performs the steps described in
Section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. The ITR can then generate a
PubSubKey by deriving a key from the OTK as follows: PubSubKey = KDF(
OTK ), where KDF is the Key Derivation Function indicated by the OTK
Wrapping ID. If OTK Wrapping ID equals NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 then the
PubSubKey is the OTK. Note that as opposed to the pre-shared
PubSubKey, this generated PubSubKey is different per EID-Record the
ITR subscribes to (since the ITR will use a different OTK per Map-
Request).
When the Map-Server receives the Map-Request it follows Section 5.
If according to Section 5 the Map-Server is to reply with a Map-Reply
(e.g. due to PubSub not supported or subscription not accepted), then
it follows normal LISP-SEC procedure described in Section 5.7 of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. No PubSubKey or security association is created
in this case.
Otherwise, if, by following Section 5, the Map-Server is to reply
with a Map-Notify (e.g. due to subscription accepted) to a received
Map-Request, the following extra steps take place (note that if the
MS replies with a Map-Notify, none of the regular LISP-SEC steps
regarding Map-Reply described in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
takes place).
o The MS extracts the OTK and OTK Wrapping ID from the LISP-SEC ECM
Authentication Data.
o The MS generates a PubSubKey by deriving a key from the OTK as
described before for the ITR. This is the same PubSubKey derived
at the ITR which is used to establish a security association
between the ITR and the MS.
o The PubSubKey can now be used to sign and authenticate any Map-
Notify between the MS and the ITR for the subscribed EID-Record.
This includes the Map-Notify sent as a confirmation to the
subscription. When the ITR wants to update the security
association for that MS and EID-Record, it follows again the
procedure described in this section.
7.2. DDoS Attack Mitigation
Misbehaving nodes may send massive subscription requests which may
lead to exhaust the resources of Map-Servers. Furthermore,
frequently changing the state of a subscription may also be
considered as an attack vector. To mitigate such issues, xTRs SHOULD
rate-limit Map-Requests and Map-Servers SHOULD rate-limit Map-
Notifies. Rate-limiting Map-Requests is discussed in Section 5.3 of
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the same guidelines apply here. To
rate-limit Map-Notifies, a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one
Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID. This parameter MUST be
configurable. Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is
met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will silently discard
additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID. Similarly, for
pending mapping updates that need to be notified to that xTR-ID, the
Map-Server will combine them into a single Map-Notify (with multiple
EID-records) which it will send when the rate-limit mechanism allows
it to transmit again Map-Notifies to that xTR-ID.
8. Contributors
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Johnson Leong
Email: johnsonleong@gmail.com
Fabio Maino
Cisco
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Stefano Secci
Cnam
France
Email: stefano.secci@cnam.fr
9. Acknowledgments
This work is partly funded by the ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-
13-INFR-009 (https://www.lisp-lab.org).
10. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to assign a new bit from the "LISP
Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry under the
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters" registry available
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
at [IANA-LISP]. The position of this bit in the Map-Request message
can be found in Figure 1.
+-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
| Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
| I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
Table 1: Additions to the Map-Request Header Bits Sub-Registry
This document also requests the creation of a new sub-registry
entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" under the "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters" registry available at
[IANA-LISP].
The initial content of this sub-registry is shown below:
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
| Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description |
| Name | | Position | |
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
| N | map-request-N | 1 | Notification-Requested |
| | | | Bit |
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
Bits in position 2-8 are for future assignment.
The policy for allocating new bits from this sub-registry is
Specification Required (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]).
11. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress), November
2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), November
2020.
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., and D. Saucez,
"LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-22 (work
in progress), January 2021.
[IANA-LISP]
IANA, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-
parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan
Google
USA
Email: ermagan@gmail.com
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP-PubSub June 2021
Albert Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech
Barcelona
Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Sharon Barkai
Nexar
Email: sharon.barkai@getnexar.com
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires December 30, 2021 [Page 14]