Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental D. Meyer
Expires: June 1, 2017 Brocade
J. Snijders
NTT
November 28, 2016
LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22
Abstract
This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in
LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP
Mapping Database System.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at 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 June 1, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
(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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Segmentation using LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses . . . . . 11
4.4. NAT Traversal Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Multicast Group Membership Information . . . . . . . . . 15
4.6. Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels . . . 17
4.7. Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database . . . . . . 18
4.8. Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.9. Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding . . . . 22
4.10. Applications for AFI List Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.10.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.10.2. Layer-2 VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.10.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . . 25
4.10.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings . . 26
4.10.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . 28
5.1. Convey Application Specific Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2. Generic Database Mapping Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3. PETR Admission Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4. Data Model Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.5. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.6. Multiple Data-Planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22.txt . . . . . . . . . 42
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-21.txt . . . . . . . . . 43
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-20.txt . . . . . . . . . 43
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-19.txt . . . . . . . . . 43
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-18.txt . . . . . . . . . 43
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-17.txt . . . . . . . . . 43
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt . . . . . . . . . 43
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt . . . . . . . . . 44
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt . . . . . . . . . 44
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt . . . . . . . . . 44
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt . . . . . . . . . 44
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt . . . . . . . . . 44
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt . . . . . . . . . 44
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt . . . . . . . . . 45
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt . . . . . . . . . 45
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt . . . . . . . . . 45
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt . . . . . . . . . 45
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt . . . . . . . . . 45
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt . . . . . . . . . 45
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt . . . . . . . . . 46
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt . . . . . . . . . 46
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt . . . . . . . . . 46
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Introduction
The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new
numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators
(RLOCs). To provide flexibility for current and future applications,
these values can be encoded in LISP control messages using a general
syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI), length, and
value fields.
Currently defined AFIs include IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which are
formatted according to code-points assigned in [AFI] as follows:
IPv4 Encoded Address:
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 = 1 | IPv4 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
IPv6 Encoded Address:
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 = 2 | IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This document describes the currently-defined AFIs the LISP protocol
uses along with their encodings and introduces the LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF) that can be used to define the LISP-specific
encodings for arbitrary AFI values.
Specific detail uses for the LCAF types defined in this document can
be found in the use-case documents that use them. The same LCAF type
may be used by more than one use-case document. As an experimental
specification, this work is by definition, incomplete. The LCAF
types defined in this document are to support experimentation and
intended for cautious use in self-contained environments in support
of the corresponding use-case documents. This document provides
assignment for an initial set of approved LCAF Types (registered with
IANA) and additional unapproved LCAF Types [RFC6830]. The unapproved
LCAF encodings are defined to support further study and
experimentation.
2. Definition of Terms
Address Family Identifier (AFI): a term used to describe an address
encoding in a packet. Address families are defined for IPv4 and
IPv6. See [AFI] and [RFC3232] for details. The reserved AFI
value of 0 is used in this specification to indicate an
unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is 0
bytes following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Unspecified Address Format:
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 = 0 | <no address follows>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Endpoint ID (EID): a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value
used in the source and destination address fields of the first
(most inner) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a
destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address
today, for example through a DNS lookup or SIP exchange. The
source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP address. An EID is allocated to a host from an
EID-prefix block associated with the site where the host is
located. An EID can be used by a host to refer to other hosts.
Routing Locator (RLOC): the IPv4 or IPv6 address of an egress
tunnel router (ETR). It is the output of a EID-to-RLOC mapping
lookup. An EID maps to one or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are
numbered from topologically aggregatable blocks that are assigned
to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global
Internet; where the topology is defined by the connectivity of
provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as Provider-Assigned
(PA) addresses. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR
device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings
IANA has assigned AFI value 16387 (0x4003) to the LISP architecture
and protocols. This specification defines the encoding format of the
LISP Canonical Address (LCA). This section defines all types for
which an initial allocation in the LISP-LCAF registry is requested.
See IANA Considerations section for the complete list of such types.
The Address Family AFI definitions from [AFI] only allocate code-
points for the AFI value itself. The length of the address or entity
that follows is not defined and is implied based on conventional
experience. When the LISP protocol uses LCAF definitions from this
document, the AFI-based address lengths are specified in this
document. When new LCAF definitions are defined in other use case
documents, the AFI-based address lengths for any new AFI encoded
addresses are specified in those documents.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
The first 6 bytes of an LISP Canonical Address are followed by a
variable number of fields of variable length:
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 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rsvd1/Rsvd2: these 8-bit fields are reserved for future use and MUST
be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt.
Flags: this 8-bit field is for future definition and use. For now,
set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Type: this 8-bit field is specific to the LISP Canonical Address
formatted encodings. Currently allocated (both approved and
unapproved) values are:
Type 0: Null Body Type
Type 1: AFI List Type
Type 2: Instance ID Type
Type 3: AS Number Type
Type 4: Application Data Type
Type 5: Geo Coordinates Type
Type 6: Opaque Key Type
Type 7: NAT-Traversal Type
Type 8: Nonce Locator Type
Type 9: Multicast Info Type
Type 10: Explicit Locator Path Type
Type 11: Security Key Type
Type 12: Source/Dest Key Type
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Type 13: Replication List Entry Type
Type 14: JSON Data Model Type
Type 15: Key/Value Address Pair Type
Type 16: Encapsulation Format Type
Length: this 16-bit field is in units of bytes and covers all of the
LISP Canonical Address payload, starting and including the byte
after the Length field. When including the AFI, an LCAF encoded
address will have a minimum length of 8 bytes when the Length
field is 0. The 8 bytes include the AFI, Flags, Type, Rsvd1,
Rsvd2, and Length fields. When the AFI is not next to an encoded
address in a control message, then the encoded address will have a
minimum length of 6 bytes when the Length field is 0. The 6 bytes
include the Flags, Type, Rsvd1, Rsvd2, and Length fields.
[RFC6830] states RLOC records based on an IP address are sorted when
encoded in control messages so the locator-set has consistent order
across all xTRs for a given EID. The sort order is based on sort-key
{afi, RLOC-address}. When an RLOC based on an IP address is LCAF
encoded, the sort-key is {afi, LCAF-Type}. Therefore, when a locator-
set has a mix of AFI records and LCAF records, they are ordered from
smallest to largest AFI value.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4. LISP Canonical Address Applications
The following sections define the LCAF for the currently approved
initial set of Type values.
4.1. Segmentation using LISP
When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private
addresses [RFC1918] as EID-prefixes, their address spaces must remain
segregated due to possible address duplication. An Instance ID in
the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI-based address
unique.
Another use for the Instance ID LISP Canonical Address Format is when
creating multiple segmented VPNs inside of a LISP site where keeping
EID-prefix based subnets is desirable.
Instance ID LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 2 | IID mask-len | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IID mask-len: if the AFI is set to 0, then this format is not
encoding an extended EID-prefix but rather an instance-ID range
where the 'IID mask-len' indicates the number of high-order bits
used in the Instance ID field for the range. The low-order bits
of the Instance ID field must be 0.
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Instance ID: the low-order 24-bits that can go into a LISP data
header when the I-bit is set. See [RFC6830] for details. The
reason for the length difference is so that the maximum number of
instances supported per mapping system is 2^32 while conserving
space in the LISP data header. This comes at the expense of
limiting the maximum number of instances per xTR to 2^24. If an
xTR is configured with multiple instance-IDs where the value in
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
the high-order 8 bits are the same, then the low-order 24 bits
MUST be unique.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
This LISP Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID or
RLOC addresses.
Usage: When used as a lookup key, the EID is regarded as an extended-
EID in the mapping system. This encoding is used in EID records in
Map-Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.
When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system
mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.
4.2. Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database
When an AS number is stored in the LISP Mapping Database System for
either policy or documentation reasons, it can be encoded in a LISP
Canonical Address.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
AS Number LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 3 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
AS Number: the 32-bit AS number of the autonomous system that has
been assigned to either the EID or RLOC that follows.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
The AS Number Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID
or RLOC addresses. The former is used to describe the LISP-ALT AS
number the EID-prefix for the site is being carried for. The latter
is used to describe the AS that is carrying RLOC based prefixes in
the underlying routing system.
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When
LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism,
extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.3. Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses
If an ETR desires to send a Map-Reply describing the Geo Coordinates
for each locator in its locator-set, it can use the Geo Coordinate
Type to convey physical location information.
Coordinates are specified using the WGS-84 (World Geodetic System)
reference coordinate system [WGS-84].
Geo Coordinate LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Altitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
N: When set to 1 means North, otherwise South.
Latitude Degrees: Valid values range from 0 to 90 degrees above or
below the equator (northern or southern hemisphere, respectively).
Latitude Minutes: Valid values range from 0 to 59.
Latitude Seconds: Valid values range from 0 to 59.
E: When set to 1 means East, otherwise West.
Longitude Degrees: Valid values are from 0 to 180 degrees right or
left of the Prime Meridian.
Longitude Minutes: Valid values range from 0 to 59.
Longitude Seconds: Valid values range from 0 to 59.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Altitude: Height relative to sea level in meters. This is a two's
complement signed integer meaning that the altitude could be below
sea level. A value of 0x7fffffff indicates no Altitude value is
encoded.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
The Geo Coordinates Canonical Address Type can be used to encode
either EID or RLOC addresses. When used for EID encodings, you can
determine the physical location of an EID along with the topological
location by observing the locator-set.
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When
LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism,
extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.
The use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF encoding raises privacy issues as
location information is privacy sensitive, and possibly unexpectedly
privacy sensitive information may be conveyed, e.g. if the location
information corresponds to a router located in a person's home.
Therefore, this encoding should not be used unless needed for
operation of a LISP deployment. Before electing to utilize this
encoding, care should be taken to ensure the appropriate policies are
being used by the EID for controlling the conveyed information.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.4. NAT Traversal Scenarios
When a LISP system is conveying global address and mapped port
information when traversing through a NAT device, the NAT-Traversal
LCAF Type is used. See [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] for details.
NAT-Traversal Canonical Address Format:
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 = 7 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MS UDP Port Number | ETR UDP Port Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Global ETR RLOC Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | MS RLOC Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Private ETR RLOC Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | RTR RLOC Address 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | RTR RLOC Address k ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
MS UDP Port Number: this is the UDP port number of the Map-Server
and is set to 4342.
ETR UDP Port Number: this is the port number returned to a LISP
system which was copied from the source port from a packet that
has flowed through a NAT device.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
Global ETR RLOC Address: this is an address known to be globally
unique built by NAT-traversal functionality in a LISP router.
MS RLOC Address: this is the address of the Map-Server used in the
destination RLOC of a packet that has flowed through a NAT device.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Private ETR RLOC Address: this is an address known to be a private
address inserted in this LCAF by a LISP router that resides on the
private side of a NAT device.
RTR RLOC Address: this is an encapsulation address used by an ITR or
PITR which resides behind a NAT device. This address is known to
have state in a NAT device so packets can flow from it to the LISP
ETR behind the NAT. There can be one or more NAT Reencapsulating
Tunnel Router (RTR) [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] addresses
supplied in these set of fields. The number of RTRs encoded is
determined by parsing each field. When there are no RTRs
supplied, the RTR fields can be omitted and reflected by the LCAF
length field or an AFI of 0 can be used to indicate zero RTRs
encoded.
Usage: This encoding can be used in Info-Request and Info-Reply
messages. The mapping system does not store this information. The
information is used by an xTR and Map-Server to convey private and
public address information when traversing NAT and firewall devices.
Care should be taken to protect privacy against the adverse use of a
Global or Private ETR RLOC Address by ensuring policy controls are
used during EID registrations that use this LCAF Type in RLOC-
records. Refer to the use case documents for additional information.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.5. Multicast Group Membership Information
Multicast group information can be published in the mapping database.
So a lookup on a group address EID can return a replication list of
RLOC group addresses or RLOC unicast addresses. The intent of this
type of unicast replication is to deliver packets to multiple ETRs at
receiver LISP multicast sites. The locator-set encoding for this EID
record type can be a list of ETRs when they each register with "Merge
Semantics". The encoding can be a typical AFI-encoded locator
address. When an RTR list is being registered (with multiple levels
according to [I-D.coras-lisp-re]), the Replication List Entry LCAF
type is used for locator encoding.
This LCAF encoding can be used to send broadcast packets to all
members of a subnet when an EID is away from its home subnet
location.
Multicast Info Canonical Address Format:
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 = 9 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Source MaskLen| Group MaskLen |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Source/Subnet Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Group Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Reserved: must be set to zero and ignored on receipt.
Instance ID: the low-order 24-bits that can go into a LISP data
header when the I-bit is set. See [RFC6830] for details. The use
of the Instance-ID in this LCAF type is to associate a multicast
forwarding entry for a given VPN. The instance-ID describes the
VPN and is registered to the mapping database system as a 3-tuple
of (Instance-ID, S-prefix, G-prefix).
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Source MaskLen: the mask length of the source prefix that follows.
The length is the number of high-order mask bits set.
Group MaskLen: the mask length of the group prefix that follows.
The length is the number of high-order mask bits set.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. When a specific address
family has a multicast address semantic, this field must be either
a group address or a broadcast address.
Source/Subnet Address: is the source address or prefix for encoding
a (S,G) multicast entry.
Group Address: is the group address or group prefix for encoding
(S,G) or (*,G) multicast entries.
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-
Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.6. Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels
For a given EID lookup into the mapping database, this LCAF can be
returned to provide a list of locators in an explicit re-
encapsulation path. See [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for details.
Explicit Locator Path (ELP) Canonical Address Format:
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 = 10 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 |L|P|S| AFI = x |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reencap Hop 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 |L|P|S| AFI = x |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reencap Hop k ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Rsvd3: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted
as 0 and ignored on receipt.
Lookup bit (L): this is the Lookup bit used to indicate to the user
of the ELP to not use this address for encapsulation but to look
it up in the mapping database system to obtain an encapsulating
RLOC address.
RLOC-Probe bit (P): this is the RLOC-probe bit which means the
Reencap Hop allows RLOC-probe messages to be sent to it. When the
R-bit is set to 0, RLOC-probes must not be sent. When a Reencap
Hop is an anycast address then multiple physical Reencap Hops are
using the same RLOC address. In this case, RLOC-probes are not
needed because when the closest RLOC address is not reachable
another RLOC address can be reachable.
Strict bit (S): this is the strict bit which means the associated
Reencap Hop is required to be used. If this bit is 0, the
reencapsulator can skip this Reencap Hop and go to the next one in
the list.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. When a specific AFI has
its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either
a group address or a broadcast address.
Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. This encoding
does not need to be understood by the mapping system for mapping
database lookups since this LCAF type is not a lookup key.
4.7. Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database
When a locator in a locator-set has a security key associated with
it, this LCAF will be used to encode key material. See
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] for details.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Security Key Canonical Address Format:
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 = 11 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key Count | Rsvd3 | Key Algorithm | Rsvd4 |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key Length | Key Material ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Key Material |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Locator Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Key Count: the Key Count field declares the number of Key sections
included in this LCAF. A key section is made up of "Key Length"
and "Key Material" fields.
Rsvd3: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted
as 0 and ignored on receipt.
Key Algorithm: the Algorithm field identifies the key's
cryptographic algorithm and specifies the format of the Public Key
field. Refer to the [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] and
[I-D.ietf-lisp-crypto] use cases for definitions of this field.
Rsvd4: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted
as 0 and ignored on receipt.
R bit: this is the revoke bit and, if set, it specifies that this
Key is being Revoked.
Key Length: this field determines the length in bytes of the Key
Material field.
Key Material: the Key Material field stores the key material. The
format of the key material stored depends on the Key Algorithm
field.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. This is the locator
address that owns the encoded security key.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When
LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism,
extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.
4.8. Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups
When both a source and destination address of a flow need
consideration for different locator-sets, this 2-tuple key is used in
EID fields in LISP control messages. When the Source/Dest key is
registered to the mapping database, it can be encoded as a source-
prefix and destination-prefix. When the Source/Dest is used as a key
for a mapping database lookup the source and destination come from a
data packet.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Source/Dest Key Canonical Address Format:
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 = 12 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Source-ML | Dest-ML |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Source-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = y | Destination-Prefix ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Reserved: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.
Source-ML: the mask length of the source prefix that follows. The
length is the number of high-order mask bits set.
Dest-ML: the mask length of the destination prefix that follows.
The length is the number of high-order mask bits set.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
AFI = y: y can be any AFI value from [AFI]. When a specific address
family has a multicast address semantic, this field must be either
a group address or a broadcast address.
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-
Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. Refer to
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for usage details of this LCAF type.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.9. Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding
The Replication List Entry LCAF type is an encoding for a locator
being used for unicast replication according to the specification in
[I-D.coras-lisp-re]. This locator encoding is pointed to by a
Multicast Info LCAF Type and is registered by Re-encapsulating Tunnel
Routers (RTRs) that are participating in an overlay distribution
tree. Each RTR will register its locator address and its configured
level in the distribution tree.
Replication List Entry Address Format:
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 = 13 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Rsvd4 | Level Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | RTR/ETR #1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Rsvd4 | Level Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | RTR/ETR #n ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Rsvd3/Rsvd4: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.
Level Value: this value is associated with the level within the
overlay distribution tree hierarchy where the RTR resides. The
level numbers are ordered from lowest value being close to the ITR
(meaning that ITRs replicate to level-0 RTRs) and higher levels
are further downstream on the distribution tree closer to ETRs of
multicast receiver sites.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. A specific AFI has its
own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address.
For efficiency reasons, all RTR/ETR entries for the same level
should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching
through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map-
Reply message.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.
4.10. Applications for AFI List Type
4.10.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses
When header translation between IPv4 and IPv6 is desirable a LISP
Canonical Address can use the AFI List Type to carry a variable
number of AFIs in one LCAF AFI.
Address Binding LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 1 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 1 | IPv4 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv4 Address | AFI = 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
This type of address format can be included in a Map-Request when the
address is being used as an EID, but the Mapping Database System
lookup destination can use only the IPv4 address. This is so a
Mapping Database Service Transport System, such as LISP-ALT
[RFC6836], can use the Map-Request destination address to route the
control message to the desired LISP site.
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. See
subsections in this section for specific use cases.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.10.2. Layer-2 VPNs
When MAC addresses are stored in the LISP Mapping Database System,
the AFI List Type can be used to carry AFI 6.
MAC Address LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 1 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 6 | Layer-2 MAC Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... Layer-2 MAC Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
This address format can be used to connect layer-2 domains together
using LISP over an IPv4 or IPv6 core network to create a layer-2 VPN.
In this use case, a MAC address is being used as an EID, and the
locator-set that this EID maps to can be an IPv4 or IPv6 RLOCs, or
even another MAC address being used as an RLOC. See
[I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] for how layer-2 VPNs operate when
doing EID mobility.
Care should be taken to protect privacy against the adverse use of a
Layer-2 MAC Address by ensuring policy controls are used during EID
registrations that use AFI=6 encodings in RLOC-records. Refer to the
use case documents for additional information.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.10.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database
If DNS names [RFC1035] or URIs [RFC3986] are stored in the LISP
Mapping Database System, the AFI List Type can be used to carry an
ASCII string.
ASCII LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 1 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 17 | DNS Name or URI ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
An example for using DNS names is when an ETR registers a mapping
with an EID-record encoded as (AFI=1, 10.0.0.0/8) with a RLOC-record
(AFI=17, "router.abc.com").
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.10.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings
When any combination of above is desirable, the AFI List Type value
can be used to carry within the LCAF AFI another LCAF AFI (for
example, Application Specific Data see Section 5.1.
Recursive LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 1 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 4 | Rsvd2 | Length2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP TOS, IPv6 TC or Flow Label | Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Port (lower-range) | Local Port (upper-range) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Port (lower-range) | Remote Port (upper-range) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 1 | IPv4 Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Length2: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length2 field.
This format could be used by a Mapping Database Transport System,
such as LISP-ALT [RFC6836], where the AFI=1 IPv4 address is used as
an EID and placed in the Map-Request destination address by the
sending LISP system. The ALT system can deliver the Map-Request to
the LISP destination site independent of the Application Data Type
AFI payload values. When this AFI is processed by the destination
LISP site, it can return different locator-sets based on the type of
application or level of service that is being requested.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
4.10.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case
A LISP system should use the AFI List Type format when sending to
LISP systems that do not support a particular LCAF Type used to
encode locators. This allows the receiving system to be able to
parse a locator address for encapsulation purposes. The list of AFIs
in an AFI List LCAF Type has no semantic ordering and a receiver
should parse each AFI element no matter what the ordering.
Compatibility Mode Address Format:
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 = 1 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Altitude |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 0 | AFI = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Length2: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length2 field.
If a system does not recognized the Geo Coordinate LCAF Type that is
accompanying a locator address, an encoder can include the Geo
Coordinate LCAF Type embedded in a AFI List LCAF Type where the AFI
in the Geo Coordinate LCAF is set to 0 and the AFI encoded next in
the list is encoded with a valid AFI value to identify the locator
address.
A LISP system is required to support the AFI List LCAF Type to use
this procedure. It would skip over 10 bytes of the Geo Coordinate
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
LCAF Type to get to the locator address encoding (an IPv4 locator
address). A LISP system that does support the Geo Coordinate LCAF
Type can support parsing the locator address within the Geo
Coordinate LCAF encoding or in the locator encoding that follows in
the AFI List LCAF.
5. Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications
The following sections describe experimental LCAF encodings. These
LCAF Types are not approved (registered with IANA). The inclusion of
these encodings in this document are in support of further study and
experimentation to determine whether these encodings are functional,
if there is a demand for these use cases, and better understand
deployment considerations. As noted previously, these LCAF Types are
restricted to cautious use in self-contained environments in support
of the corresponding use-case documents.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
5.1. Convey Application Specific Data
When a locator-set needs to be conveyed based on the type of
application or the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) of a packet, the
Application Data Type can be used.
Application Data LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 4 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP TOS, IPv6 TC, or Flow Label | Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Port (lower-range) | Local Port (upper-range) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Port (lower-range) | Remote Port (upper-range) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
IP TOS, IPv6 TC, or Flow Label: this field stores the 8-bit IPv4 TOS
field used in an IPv4 header, the 8-bit IPv6 Traffic Class or Flow
Label used in an IPv6 header.
Local Port/Remote Port Ranges: these fields are from the TCP, UDP,
or SCTP transport header. A range can be specified by using a
lower value and an upper value. When a single port is encoded,
the lower and upper value fields are the same.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
The Application Data Canonical Address Type is used for an EID
encoding when an ITR wants a locator-set for a specific application.
When used for an RLOC encoding, the ETR is supplying a locator-set
for each specific application is has been configured to advertise.
Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-
Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages. When LISP-DDT
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages. This LCAF type is used as a
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
lookup key to the mapping system that can return a longest-match or
exact-match entry.
5.2. Generic Database Mapping Lookups
When the LISP Mapping Database system holds information accessed by a
generic formatted key (where the key is not the usual IPv4 or IPv6
address), an opaque key may be desirable.
Opaque Key LISP Canonical Address Format:
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 = 6 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key Field Num | Key Wildcard Fields | Key . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Key |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Key Field Num: the value of this field is the number of "Key" sub-
fields minus 1, the "Key" field can be broken up into. So if this
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
field has a value of 0, there is 1 sub-field in the "Key". The
width of the sub-fields are fixed length. So for a key size of 8
bytes, with a Key Field Num of 3, allows 4 sub-fields of 2 bytes
each in length. Allowing for a reasonable number of 16 sub-field
separators, valid values range from 0 to 15.
Key Wildcard Fields: describes which fields in the key are not used
as part of the key lookup. This wildcard encoding is a bitfield.
Each bit is a don't-care bit for a corresponding field in the key.
Bit 0 (the low-order bit) in this bitfield corresponds the first
field, the low-order field in the key, bit 1 the second field, and
so on. When a bit is set in the bitfield it is a don't-care bit
and should not be considered as part of the database lookup. When
the entire 16-bits is set to 0, then all bits of the key are used
for the database lookup.
Key: the variable length key used to do a LISP Database Mapping
lookup. The length of the key is the value n (as shown above).
Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
defined yet.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
5.3. PETR Admission Control Functionality
When a public PETR device wants to verify who is encapsulating to it,
it can check for a specific nonce value in the LISP encapsulated
packet. To convey the nonce to admitted ITRs or PITRs, this LCAF is
used in a Map-Register or Map-Reply locator-record.
Nonce Locator Canonical Address Format:
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 = 8 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Reserved: must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.
Nonce: this is a nonce value returned by an ETR in a Map-Reply
locator-record to be used by an ITR or PITR when encapsulating to
the locator address encoded in the AFI field of this LCAF type.
This nonce value is inserted in the nonce field in the LISP header
encapsulation.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI].
Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
defined yet.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
5.4. Data Model Encoding
This type allows a JSON data model to be encoded either as an EID or
RLOC.
JSON Data Model Type Address Format:
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 = 14 | Rsvd2 |B| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| JSON length | JSON binary/text encoding ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Optional Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
B bit: indicates that the JSON field is binary encoded according to
[JSON-BINARY] when the bit is set to 1. Otherwise the encoding is
based on text encoding according to [RFC7159].
JSON length: length in octets of the following 'JSON binary/text
encoding' field.
JSON binary/text encoding field: a variable length field that
contains either binary or text encodings.
AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI]. A specific AFI has its
own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address.
All RTR/ETR entries for the same level should be combined together
by a Map-Server to avoid searching through the entire multi-level
list of locator entries in a Map-Reply message.
Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
defined yet. An example mapping is an EID-record encoded as a
distinguished-name "cpe-rotuer" and a RLOC-record encoded as a JSON
string "{ "router-address" : "1.1.1.1", "router-mask" : "8" }".
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
5.5. Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs
The Key/Value pair is, for example, useful for attaching attributes
to other elements of LISP packets, such as EIDs or RLOCs. When
attaching attributes to EIDs or RLOCs, it's necessary to distinguish
between the element that should be used as EID or RLOC, and hence as
the key for lookups, and additional attributes. This is especially
the case when the difference cannot be determined from the types of
the elements, such as when two IP addresses are being used.
Key/Value Pair Address Format:
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 = 15 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address as Key ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = y | Address as Value ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
AFI = x: x is the "Address as Key" AFI that can have any value from
[AFI]. A specific AFI has its own encoding of either a unicast or
multicast locator address. All RTR/ETR entries for the same level
should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching
through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map-
Reply message.
Address as Key: this AFI-encoded address will be attached with the
attributes encoded in "Address as Value" which follows this field.
AFI = y: y is the "Address of Value" AFI that can have any value
from [AFI]. A specific AFI has its own encoding of either a
unicast or multicast locator address. All RTR/ETR entries for the
same level should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid
searching through the entire multi-level list of locator entries
in a Map-Reply message.
Address as Value: this AFI-encoded address will be the attribute
address that goes along with "Address as Key" which precedes this
field.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
defined yet.
5.6. Multiple Data-Planes
Overlays are becoming popular in many parts of the network which have
created an explosion of data-plane encapsulation headers. Since the
LISP mapping system can hold many types of address formats, it can
represent the encapsulation format supported by an RLOC as well.
When an encapsulator receives a Map-Reply with an Encapsulation
Format LCAF Type encoded in an RLOC-record, it can select an
encapsulation format, that it can support, from any of the
encapsulation protocols which have the bit set to 1 in this LCAF
type.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Encapsulation Format Address Format:
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 |U|G|N|v|V|l|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
Length field.
Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations: must be set to zero and ignored
on receipt. This field will get bits allocated to future
encapsulations, as they are created.
L: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept layer 3 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port
4341 [RFC6830].
l: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept layer 2 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port
8472 [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2].
V: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept VXLAN encapsulation using destination UDP port 4789
[RFC7348].
v: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept VXLAN-GPE encapsulation using destination UDP port 4790
[I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe].
N: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept NV-GRE encapsulation using IPv4/ IPv6 protocol number
47 [RFC7637].
G: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept GENEVE encapsulation using destination UDP port 6081
[I-D.gross-geneve].
U: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
can accept GUE encapsulation using destination UDP port TBD
[I-D.herbert-gue].
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.
6. Security Considerations
This document is classified as Experimental. The LCAF encodings
defined in this document are intended to be used with their
corresponding use cases and in self-contained environments. Users
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
should carefully consider how the [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] threat model
applies to their particular use case.
The use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type may raise physical privacy
issues. Care should be taken when configuring the mapping system to
use specific policy parameters so geo-location information is not
returned gratuitously. It is recommended that any documents that
specify the use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type should consider the
applicability of the BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy
protection.
Additional privacy concerns have arisen since publication of BCP160,
and future work on LISP should examine potential threats beyond
BCP160 and address improving privacy and security for LISP
deployments.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in
LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP
Mapping Database System. Such address format is based on a fixed AFI
(16387) and a LISP LCAF Type field.
The LISP LCAF Type field is an 8-bit field specific to the LISP
Canonical Address formatted encodings, for which IANA is to create
and maintain a new registry (as outlined in [RFC5226]) entitled "LISP
LCAF Type". Initial values for the LISP LCAF Type registry are given
below. Future assignments are to be made based on specification
required. Assignments consist of a LISP LCAF Type name and its
associated value:
+-------+------------------------------+------------+
| Value | LISP LCAF Type Name | Definition |
+-------+------------------------------+------------+
| 0 | Null Body Type | Section 3 |
| 1 | AFI List Type | Section 3 |
| 2 | Instance ID Type | Section 3 |
| 3 | AS Number Type | Section 3 |
| 5 | Geo Coordinates Type | Section 3 |
| 7 | NAT-Traversal Type | Section 3 |
| 9 | Multicast Info Type | Section 3 |
| 10 | Explicit Locator Path Type | Section 3 |
| 11 | Security Key Type | Section 3 |
| 12 | Source/Dest Key Type | Section 3 |
| 13 | Replication List Entry Type | Section 3 |
+-------+------------------------------+------------+
Table 1: LISP LCAF Type Initial Values
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BCP160] "An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in
Internet Applications", Best Current Practices
https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp160.txt, July 2011.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for
Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6280>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.
8.2. Informative References
[AFI] IANA, , "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007.
[I-D.coras-lisp-re]
Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-08 (work in progress),
November 2015.
[I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
lisp-nat-traversal-11 (work in progress), August 2016.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]
Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-11 (work
in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.gross-geneve]
Gross, J., Sridhar, T., Garg, P., Wright, C., Ganga, I.,
Agarwal, P., Duda, K., Dutt, D., and J. Hudson, "Geneve:
Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-
gross-geneve-02 (work in progress), October 2014.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
[I-D.herbert-gue]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", draft-herbert-gue-03 (work in progress),
March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-crypto]
Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "LISP Data-Plane
Confidentiality", draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-10 (work in
progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-
ddt-08 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12
(work in progress), November 2016.
[I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid-
mobility-01 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe]
Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F.,
Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg,
P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN",
draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04 (work in progress), February
2015.
[I-D.smith-lisp-layer2]
Smith, M., Dutt, D., Farinacci, D., and F. Maino, "Layer 2
(L2) LISP Encapsulation Format", draft-smith-lisp-
layer2-03 (work in progress), September 2013.
[JSON-BINARY]
"Universal Binary JSON Specification",
URL http://ubjson.org.
[WGS-84] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic
System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, <http://earth-
info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Vince Fuller, Gregg Schudel, Jesper
Skriver, Luigi Iannone, Isidor Kouvelas, and Sander Steffann for
their technical and editorial commentary.
The authors would like to thank Victor Moreno for discussions that
lead to the definition of the Multicast Info LCAF type.
The authors would like to thank Parantap Lahiri and Michael Kowal for
discussions that lead to the definition of the Explicit Locator Path
(ELP) LCAF type.
The authors would like to thank Fabio Maino and Vina Ermagan for
discussions that lead to the definition of the Security Key LCAF
type.
The authors would like to thank Albert Cabellos-Aparicio and Florin
Coras for discussions that lead to the definition of the Replication
List Entry LCAF type.
Thanks goes to Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for
suggesting new LCAF types.
Thanks also goes to Terry Manderson for assistance obtaining a LISP
AFI value from IANA.
And finally, the authors thank Stephen Farrell (Security Area
Director) and Deborah Brungard (Routing Area Director) for their
suggested text to get the document through IESG review.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22.txt
o Submitted November 2016.
o Take into account RTG area director Deborah Brungard's comments
suggestions.
o The changes put in shoudl clear Stephen's DISCUSS comments on
RLOC-record ordering and privacy concerns with the Geo-Coordinate
LCAF type.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-21.txt
o Submitted November 2016.
o Reflect Alexey's DISCUSS comments.
o Add text to intro section that says the details for any LCAF type
can be found in other use-case documents.
o Provide general examples for JSON and DNS LCAF types.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-20.txt
o Submitted October 2016.
o Put in references to DNS names and URIs per Alexey's comment.
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-19.txt
o Submitted October 2016.
o Make it more clear that any use-case documents that use the Geo-
Coordinates LCAF type should discuss RFC6280 compliance.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-18.txt
o Submitted October 2016 after October 13th telechat.
o Addressed comments from Ben Campbell, Jari Arrko, Stephen Farrel,
Peter Yee, Dale Worley, Mirja Kuehlewind, and Suresh Krishnan.
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-17.txt
o Submitted October 2016.
o Addressed comments from Gen-ART reviewer Peter Yee.
o Addressed IESG last-call comments from Suresh Krishnan.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt
o Submitted October 2016.
o Addressed comments from Security Directorate reviewer David
Mandelberg.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt
o Submitted September 2016.
o Addressed comments from Routing Directorate reviewer Stig Venass.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt
o Submitted July 2016.
o Fix IDnits errors and comments from Luigi Iannone, document
shepherd.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt
o Submitted May 2016.
o Explain the Instance-ID LCAF Type is 32-bits in length and the
Instance-ID field in the LISP encapsulation header is 24-bits.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt
o Submitted March 2016.
o Updated references and document timer.
o Removed the R, J, and L bits from the Multicast Info Type LCAF
since working group decided to not go forward with draft-
farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-03.txt in favor of draft- ietf-lisp-
signal-free-00.txt.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt
o Submitted September 2015.
o Reflecting comments from Prague LISP working group.
o Readying document for a LISP LCAF registry, RFC publication, and
for new use cases that will be defined in the new charter.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt
o Submitted June 2015.
o Fix coauthor Job's contact information.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt
o Submitted June 2015.
o Fix IANA Considerations section to request a registry to allocate
and track LCAF Type values.
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt
o Submitted April 2015.
o Comment from Florin. The Application Data Type length field has a
typo. The field should be labeled "12 + n" and not "8 + n".
o Fix length fields in the sections titled "Using Recursive LISP
Canonical Address Encodings", "Generic Database Mapping Lookups",
and "Data Model Encoding".
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt
o Submitted December 2014.
o Add a new LCAF Type called "Encapsulation Format" so decapsulating
xTRs can inform encapsulating xTRs what data-plane encapsulations
they support.
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt
o Submitted October 2014.
o Make it clear how sorted RLOC records are done when LCAFs are used
as the RLOC record.
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt
o Submitted May 2014.
o Add a length field of the JSON payload that can be used for either
binary or text encoding of JSON data.
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt
o Submitted January 2014.
o Agreement among ELP implementors to have the AFI 16-bit field
adjacent to the address. This will make the encoding consistent
with all other LCAF type address encodings.
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt
o Submitted September 2013.
o Updated references and author's affilations.
o Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative
ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN.
o Add port range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type.
o Add a new JSON LCAF Type.
o Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached
to an address.
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt
o Submitted March 2013.
o Added new LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to support LISP
replication engineering use cases.
o Changed references to new LISP RFCs.
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt
o Submitted January 2013.
o Change longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in section 4.4.
o Added reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4.
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt
o Posted first working group draft August 2012.
o This draft was renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) November 2016
Dave Meyer
Brocade
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net
Job Snijders
NTT Communications
Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
Amsterdam 1065 SZ
The Netherlands
Email: job@ntt.net
Farinacci, et al. Expires June 1, 2017 [Page 47]
