Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon
Expires: January 20, 2019 Broadcom
P. Agarwal
Innovium
D. Lewis
M. Smith
Cisco
July 19, 2018
LISP Generic Protocol Extension
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04
Abstract
This document describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-
protocol encapsulation.
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 http://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 20, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(http://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
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
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
1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 3
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR
Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
LISP Data-Plane, as defined in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines
an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth
referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP
transport.
The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being
encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only
IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348]
(which defines a similar header format to LISP), are used to
encapsulate L2 protocols such as Ethernet.
This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.
A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,
when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,
albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
1.1. Conventions
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Definition of Terms
This document uses terms already defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions
As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol
identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because
of this, LISP is limited to carry IP payloads.
The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags
(some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an
instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility
to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is
the last reserved bit in the LISP 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LISP Header
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)
This document defines the following changes to the LISP 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.
P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined
in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit
because this flag bit is currently unallocated.
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to
carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the
protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce,
an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]. These are all optional capabilities that
are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and the V
bit respectively.
When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
middle 16 bits.
When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is
the middle 16 bits.
When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0,
the middle 16-bits are set to 0.
This document defines the following Next Protocol values:
0x1 : IPv4
0x2 : IPv6
0x3 : Ethernet
0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LISP-GPE Header
4. Backward Compatibility
LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane
capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-
Planes" LCAF type defined in [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be
used, including static xTR configuration, but are out of the scope of
this document.
When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P
bit MUST be set to 0.
A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets to a non LISP-
GPE capable router.
4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities
The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the
"Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a
Map-Reply to encode the encapsularion formats supported by a given
RLOC. In this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to
support LISP-GPE on a given RLOC of that ETR.
The "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as defined in [RFC8060], has a
Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations 25-bit field. This document
defines the least significant bit of that field as g bit (bit 24 in
the third 32-bit word of the LCAF).
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 = 16 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations |g|U|G|N|v|V|l|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type
g Bit: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next
longword can accept LISP-GPE (Generic Protocol Extension)
encapsulation using destination UDP port 4341
All other fields: As defined in [RFC8060]
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
4.2. Type of Service
When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
field
4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID)
When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped
to, or used to determine the LISP Instance ID field.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are
defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards
Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do
not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This Document |
| 1 | IPv4 | This Document |
| 2 | IPv6 | This Document |
| 3 | Ethernet | This Document |
| 4 | NSH | This Document |
| 5..255 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
6. Security Considerations
LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].
With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and
traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
encapsulated.
7. Acknowledgements and Contributors
A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
detailed review.
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
This WG document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; the following
are its coauthors and contributors along with their respective
affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of this document
would like to thank and recognize them and their contributions.
These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable concepts and
content for this document's creation.
o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Larry Kreeger
o John Lemon, Broadcom
o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.
[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-14 (work in progress),
July 2018.
[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=6991460>.
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
[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>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Fabio Maino (editor)
Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2018
John Lemon
Broadcom
270 Innovation Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com
Puneet Agarwal
Innovium
USA
Email: puneet@acm.org
Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
Michael Smith
Cisco Systems
Email: michsmit@cisco.com
Maino, et al. Expires January 20, 2019 [Page 9]