Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-12

LISP Working Group                                    A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Updates: 8060 (if approved)                                   V. Ermagan
Intended status: Experimental                                     Google
Expires: 7 January 2023                                       A. Smirnov
                                                           V. Ashtaputre
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            D. Farinacci
                                                             lispers.net
                                                             6 July 2022

          Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
                     draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-12

Abstract

   This document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
   Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor Specific LCAF.  This LCAF
   enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for
   LCAF addresses.  This document updates RFC8060.

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 7 January 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                   July 2022

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Unrecognized LCAF types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Vendor Specific LCAF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
   and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments.
   However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that
   may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are
   defined.  This document extends [RFC8060] to introduce a Vendor
   Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF
   addresses to be used only on particular LISP implementations.  This
   document also updates [RFC8060] to specify the behavior when
   receiving unrecognized LCAF Types.

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.  Unrecognized LCAF types

   [RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle
   unrecognized LCAF Type.  This document updates [RFC8060] to specify
   that any unrecognized LCAF Type received in a LISP control plane
   message MUST be ignored.  If all Locators are ignored, this is
   equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as
   described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  If an EID-Prefix only
   contains unrecognized LCAF Types, the LISP control message MUST be
   dropped and the event MUST be logged.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                   July 2022

4.  Vendor Specific LCAF

   The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
   Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802] to prevent collisions across
   vendors or organizations using the LCAF.  The format of the Vendor
   Specific LCAF is provided below.

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Type = TBD  |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      Rsvd3    |    Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Internal format...                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 1: Vendor Specific LCAF

   The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor Specific LCAF
   are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
   in [RFC8060].  The "Type" field MUST be set to the value assigned by
   IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF (255 is
   recommended, see Section 7).  The Length field has to be set
   accordingly to the length of the internal format plus the OUI plus
   the Rsvd3 fields as for [RFC8060].  The fields defined by the Vendor
   Specific LCAF are:

      Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be
      set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

      Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
      that carries an OUI or CID (Company ID) assigned by the IEEE
      Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802
      [IEEE.802]

      Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left
      undefined on purpose.  Each vendor or organization can define its
      own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF.

   The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where
   different organizations interoperate.  However, there may be cases
   where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which
   they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                   July 2022

   Specific LCAF.  In that case, the organizations involved need to
   carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular
   deployment.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an
   organization.

   If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific
   LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
   message and it SHOULD create a log message.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
   internal use.  It is the responsibility of these organizations to
   properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
   Security considerations from [RFC8060] apply to this document.

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, and
   Alvaro Retana for their suggestions and guidance regarding this
   document.

7.  IANA Considerations

   Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
   value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
   Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
   [RFC8060]) as follows:

      +=========+=====================+============================+
      | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name |         Reference          |
      +=========+=====================+============================+
      |   TBD   |   Vendor Specific   | [This Document], Section 4 |
      +---------+---------------------+----------------------------+

                 Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment

8.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
              Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-38, 7 May 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-38.txt>.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                   July 2022

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6833bis-31.txt>.

   [IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks: Overview and Architecture",
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, 1 July
              2014, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847097>.

   [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>.

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

   [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
   Spain
   Email: natal@cisco.com

   Vina Ermagan
   Google
   United States of America
   Email: ermagan@gmail.com

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                   July 2022

   Anton Smirnov
   Cisco
   Diegem
   Belgium
   Email: asmirnov@cisco.com

   Vrushali Ashtaputre
   Cisco
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: vrushali@cisco.com

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: farinacci@gmail.com

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 6]