LISP Working Group S. Barkai
Internet-Draft B. Fernandez-Ruiz
Intended status: Informational R. Tamir
Expires: September 10, 2022 Nexar Inc.
A. Rodriguez-Natal
F. Maino
Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos-Aparicio
J. Paillisse Vilanova
Technical University of Catalonia
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
June 26, 2022
Network-Hexagons:Geolocation Mobility Edge Network Based On H3 and LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-36
Abstract
This informational document describes the combination of LISP and the
H3 geospatial hierarchical grid forming a Geolocation mobility edge
network. When vehicles with AI cameras detect objects of interest
on the road, they use their GPS to calculate their high-resolution
grid-tile position. They then use this tile to calculate the
high-resolution tile of the detection. The low-resolution (big)
grid-tile containing the detection tile identifier is used as basis to
IPv6 LISP endpoint identifier (EID). This EID is the queue destination
of Geolocation process consolidating detections form all vehicles in
that area. Geolocation processes use their EID as source of channels
consolidating per theme of all ongoing road situations in their area.
Vehicles driving or navigating to an area subscribe to these channels.
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 September 10, 2022.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
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 and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Mobility Clients-Services Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Mobility Unicast and Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1. Introduction
This informational document describes the combination of LISP and the
H3 geospatial hierarchical grid forming a Geolocation mobility edge
network. When vehicles with AI cameras detect objects of interest
on the road, they use their GPS to calculate their high-resolution
grid-tile position. They then use this tile to calculate the
high-resolution tile of the detection. The low-resolution (big)
grid-tile containing the detection tile identifier is used as basis to
IPv6 LISP endpoint identifier (EID). This EID is the queue destination
of Geolocation process consolidating detections form all vehicles in
that area. Geolocation processes use their EID as source of channels
consolidating per theme of all ongoing road situations in their area.
Vehicles driving or navigating to an area subscribe to these channels.
Geolocation processes are delegated dynamically to compute locations
according road activity in their area. This services dynamics combined
with clients' IP Anchor dynamics causes key-issues resolved by LISP:
- Coherency of Geolocation processes' IPs cached by vehicle clients
- Context-switching between Geolocation processes per driving client
- Geo-privacy and tracking of clients interacting with geo-processes
- Client subscription continuity switching IP Anchors while driving
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
Resolving these key-issues is achievable by address virtualization:
- Addresses virtualization for clients and services communicating
- Algorithmic services addressing based on geospatial grid identifiers
- Algorithmic clients addressing based on an authorization procedure
Virtual addressing based on LISP EIDs is applied to Geolocation:
- Addressable queues for uploads from mobility clients
- Addressable channels for subscribed mobility clients
In addition to queues and channels Geolocations Services include
application state and functions. Functions are available in all
compute locations, geospatial-situation state regenerates.
___
/ \
Addressable >> State >> Addressable
Upload Queues \ ___ / Channels
/\ Functions() \/
Figure 1: Geolocation schematics: queues, channels, states, functions
Address virtualization based on LISP EIDs includes:
- EID addressing of Geolocation queues based on H3 identifiers
- EID addressing of detection channels, H3-ID sources and topics
- EID addressing of mobility clients, assigned-renewed periodically
Service EIDs enable portability of Geolocation queues and channels.
Client EIDs enable channel-subscription continuity, for when mobile
cellular or wifi carriers are switched for reception or other reasons.
Client EIDs are temporary and make it difficult to track by services.
EIDs, geospatial-service and temporary-clients, allow for dynamic and
portable service allocation, algorithmic context switching between
processes while driving, subscription continuity, and IP geo-privacy.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
Note 1: The breakdown of Geolocations Services to processes is done
based on geospatial grid lines known to both mobility clients and
Geolocation Services. We use H3 [H3] hierarchical hexagonal grid
because of its clear tile adjacency properties. Each grid-tile
in each resolution has a unique 64bit identifier (HID). HIDs are
mapped to EIDs algorithmically. In addition to shards, the same grid
at higher resolution (smaller tiles) is used to localize detections.
We refer to h3.rB as the lower resolution shard big tile, and h3.rS as
the detection location, higher resolution small tile.
Mappings: GPS => h3.rS => H3.rB => EID are therefore algorithmic.
Sizeof (h3.rB) / Sizeof (h3.rS) x density-factor / MTU ~ number of
messages needed to convey big-tile shard a snapshot of small-tiles.
Off-Peak Allocation
Packed on less compute
_ _ _ _
/ \/ \ / \/ \ ----
\_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- Peak Geolocation Allocation
/ \/ \ / \/ \ ---- Geospatial shards spread on more compute
\_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ \/ \ / \/ \ ---- / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ ----
\_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ----
/ \/ \ / \/ \ ---- / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ ----
\_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ----
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Site Site Standby Site Site Site Site Standby
Figure 2: Geolocation dynamic allocation per geospatial activity
Note 2: LISP solution for address virtualization is an application
network. In order for clients and services to use it there needs to be
a formal provisioning step. For the clients this step will require
Authentication Authorization and Accounting (AAA) procedure by which
clients are assigned and renew EIDs and XTRs to be used to interact
with services. This process may be done in various vendor specific
methods, or multivendor AAA service. AAA procedure is described as
a life-cycle example.
Note 3: In order to make the notion of geospatial detection concrete,
we add to the 64bit HID of "where" is a detection, 64bit of "what" is
the detection or situation. These 64bits are detailed in a bit-mask
based on a taxonomy defined by Berkeley Deep Drive [BDD]. It is meant
as a baseline that can be extended or overridden depending on need.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
2. Definition of Terms
Based on [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis][I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
H3ServiceEID: Is an EID addressable Geolocation Service shard.
It is a designated destination for geospatial detections,
and an (S,G) source of multicast of themed detection channels.
It has a light-weight LISP protocol stack to tunnel packets
via ServerXTR. The EID is IPv6 and contains HID in the lower bits.
ServerXTR: Is a data-plane only LISP protocol stack implementation, it
is co-located with H3ServiceEID process. ServerXTR encapsulates and
decapsulates packets to and from EdgeRTRs.
MobilityClient: Is an application that may be a part of a vehicle
system, part of a navigation application, gov-muni application etc.
It has light-weight LISP data-plane stack to packets via ClientXTR.
MobilityClientEID: Is the IPv6 EID used by the Mobility Clients.
The destination of such packets are H3ServiceEIDs. The EID format
is assigned as part of the MobilityClient mobility-network AAA.
ClientXTR: Is a data-plane only LISP protocol stack implementation
co-located with the Mobility Client application. It encapsulates
and decapsulates packets to and from EdgeRTRs.
EdgeRTR: EdgeRTR network connects MobilityClients to H3ServiceEIDs.
EdgeRTRs manage MobilityClients multicast registrations [RFC8378].
EdgeRTRs aggregate MobilityClients/H3Services using tunnels to
facilitate hosting-providers and mobile-providers in accessing the
LISP based Geolocation mobility-network.
EdgeRTRs decapsulate packets from ClientXTRs and ServerXTRs,
and re-encapsulates packets to clients and servers.
EdgeRTRs glean H3ServiceEIDs and MobilityClient EIDs when
they decapsulates packets. EdgeRTRs store H3ServiceEIDs and route-
locations (RLOC) using map-caches. Mappings are registered to the
LISP mapping system [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Mappings may be
provisioned when H3Services are assigned EdgeRTRs. EdgeRTRs do not
register MobilityClients' EIDs.
Enterprises may provide their own EdgeRTRs to protect geo-privacy.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
h3.rB routed-shards grid tiles
___ ___
H3ServiceEIDs ___ / \ H3ServiceEIDs ___ / \
___ / | h3.rB | ___ / | h3.rB |
/ | h3.rB \ ___ / / | h3.rB \ ___ /
| h3.rB \ ___ / sXTR | h3.rB \ ___ / sXTR
\ ___ / sXTR || \ ___ / sXTR ||
sXTR || || sXTR || ||
|| || || || || ||
|| || || || || ||
= = = = = = EdgeRTR EdgeRTR = = = = =
|| (( () )) ||
( Geolocation )
( Mobility Network )
( Based on LISP )
( || (( (()) () || )
|| ||
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
|| ||
EdgeRTR EdgeRTR
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
((((|)))) ((((|)))) ((((|)))) ((((|))))
/|\ RAN /|\ /|\ RAN /|\
|| ||
|| ||
Uploads Upstream ||
Channels Downstream ||
|| ___ ___ ___ ||
|| << movment << / \/ \/ \<<cXTR::MobilityClientB
|| - - - - - - - - h3.rS h3.rS h3.rS - - - - - - - - - - - -
MobilityClientA::cXTR >> \ ___ /\ ___ / >> movement >> .......
Figure 3: Geolocation clients and services interaction layout
Figure 3 above describes:
- MobilityClientA detections used by MobilityClientB, and vice versa
- Clients: share information only via Geolocation Services
- ClientXTR (cXTR):encapsulates packets over access network to EdgeRTR
- ServerXTR (sXTR):encapsulates packets over edge network to EdgeRTR
- Uploads: routed to appropriate Geolocation Service by EdgeRTRs
- Channels: originate from Geolocation Services replicated by EdgeRTRs
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
3. Deployment Assumptions
I. We assume detections can be localized to h3.rS tiles and can be
enumerated. Compact detection enumeration format is described bellow:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-|
|012301230123012301230123 Index 01230123012301230123012301230123
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Nibble based compact representation of tile detection state
Detections are in 16 fields x 16 enumerations. Nibbles are named using
hexadecimal index according to the position where the most significant
nibble has index 0. Values based on [BDD] are defined in section 8.
II. Authorization of MobilityClients to mobility-network is renewed
while driving. DNS/AAA procedure described bellow can be used as an
example to obtain EIDs/EdgeRTRs and for enabling use of the network.
Diameter [RFC6733] based AAA can be used to accommodate many types
of mobility clients in a rich eco-system: vehicle systems, driving
and navigation applications, smart-city and consumer applications.
Example procedure for ClientXTRs to use the mobility-network:
1) obtain the address of the mobility-network AAA using DNS
2) obtain MobilityClientEIDs and EdgeRTRs from AAA procedure
3) renewed periodically from AAA while using the network
MobilityClient DomainNameServer AAA Server MobilityEdgeRTR
| | | |
| lookup AAA Server | | |
|------------------->| | |
|<-------------------| | |
| AAA Server IP | | |
| | | |
| Client identifier and credentials | |
|--------------------------------------->| |
| | |Provision Client EID|
| | |------------------->|
| | |<-------------------|
| | | Ack Provisioed EID |
| Send ClientEID,EdgeRTR RLOC | |
|<---------------------------------------| |
. .
. Use The H3-LISP Geolocation Mobility Network .
. .
|<----------------------------------------------------------->|
. .
. Renew AAA ClientEID and EdgeRTR provisioning .
Figure 5: Example exchange for mobility-network usage
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
4. Mobility Clients-Services Networking
The mobility-network functions as a standard LISP overlay.
The overlay delivers unicast and multicast packets across:
Data-plane XTRs are used in the stack of each mobility client/server.
ClientXTRs and ServerXTRs are associated with EdgeRTRs.
This structure allows for MobilityClients to "show up" at any of
mobility-network location behind any network provider or network
address translation domain. It allows for any H3ServiceEID to be
instantiated, delegated, or failed-over to any compute location.
In this specification we assume semi-random association between
ClientXTRs and EdgeRTRs - assigned in AAA procedure. We assume in
any given metro area a pool of EdgeRTRs to distribute the Mobility
Clients load. We assume EdgeRTRs are topologically equivalent.
EdgeRTRs use LISP to encapsulate traffic to and from other EdgeRTRs.
MobilityClient == ClientXTR ClientXTR == MobilityClient
(Encryption and Decryption) || || (Encryption and Decryption)
|| ||
EdgeRTR X EdgeRTR
|| ||
(Encryption and Decryption) || || (Encryption and Decryption)
H3ServiceEID == ServerXTR ServerXTR == H3ServiceEID
Figure 6: LISP network connecting MobilityClients and H3ServiceEIDs
Note: there may be more than one ClientEID in the same process using the
same ClientXTR. For example multiple layers of map or heads-up display.
Such vendor specific multiplexing implementation is unspecified here.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
5. Mobility Unicast and Multicast
The day in a life of unicast detection upload:
1. A client detects condition of interest using AI camera
2. The client uses its GPS to establish its h3.rS location
3. It then estimates the h3.rS location of the detection
4. Detection h3.rS is used to calculate h3.rB => H3ServerEID
5. Client sends (encrypted) location-detection via its ClientXTR
Outer Header src/dest: ClientXTR RLOC, EdgeRTR RLOC
Inner Header src/dest: ClientEID, H3ServiceEID
6. EdgeRTR gleans and caches ClientEID and ClientXTR RLOC
7. EdgeRTR resolves RLOC of remote EdgeRTR, and re-tunnels:
Outer Header src/dest: EdgeRTR RLOC, remote EdgeRTR RLOC
Inner Header src/dest: ClientEID, H3ServiceEID
8. Remote EdgeRTR lookups H3ServerEID ServerXTR RLOC, re-tunnels:
Outer Header src/dest: EdgeRTR RLOC, ServerXTR RLOC
Inner Header src/dest: ClientEID, H3ServiceEID
9. ServerXTR delivers ClientEID message to H3ServiceEID
The detection message headers consist of the following fields:
- Outer headers size = 40 (IPv6) + 8 (UDP) + 8 (LISP) = 56
- Inner headers size = 40 (IPv6) + 8 (UDP) + 4 (Nexagon Header) = 52
- 1500 (MTU) - 56 - 52 = 1392 bytes of effective payload size
Nexagon Header allows for key-value (kv) tuples or value-key,key
..(vkkk) using the same formats of key and value outlined bellow
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
| Type |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
Figure 7: Nexagon header format
Nexagon Header Type 0:reserved (*)
Type 1:key-value, key-value.. 1392 / (8 + 8) = 87 pairs
Type 2:value, key,key,key.. (1392 - 8) / 8 = 173 h3.rS IDs
Type 3-255: unassigned
Nexagon Header GZIP field: 0x000 no compression, or (**) GZIP version.
Nexagon Header Reserved bits
Nexagon Header key and value count (in any format kv or vkkk)
(*) Reserved fields are specified as being set to 0 on transmission,
ignored when received.
(**) GZIP refers to entire kv or vkkk payload and major GZIP version,
packets with unsupported GZIP version are dropped
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Source MobilityClientEID + |
| | IPv6
+ + |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Dest H3ServiceEID + |
| | |
+ + |
| | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = xxxx | \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| Type |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Uploaded detections packet format
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
Each H3Service is also an IP Multicast Source used to update
subscribers on the state of the h3.rS tiles in the h3.rB area.
We use [RFC8378] signal-free multicast to implement overlay channels.
Mobility-networks have many channels with thousands subscribers each.
MobilityClients driving through/subscribing to an h3.rB area issue
group address report based on any mechanism supported by [RFC8378].
Example report formats are specified in [RFC4604].
Report messages are encapsulated between ClientXTRs and EdgeRTRs.
The day in a life of multicast update:
1. H3ServiceEID determines change or timing requiring an update
2. H3ServiceEID sends (S,G) update message via its ServerXTR
Outer Header src/dest: ServerXTR RLOC, EdgeRTR RLOC
Inner Header (S,G): H3ServerEID, EID chosen for theme
3. EdgeRTR resolves subscribed remote EdgeRTRs, replicates
Outer Header src/dest: EdgeRTR RLOC, remote EdgeRTR RLOC
Inner Header (S,G): H3ServerEID, EID chosen for theme
4. EdgeRTRs lookups subscribed ClientEIDs ClientXTRs RLOCs, replicates
Outer Header src/dest: EdgeRTR RLOC, ClientXTR RLOC
Inner Header (S,G): H3ServerEID, EID chosen for theme
5. ClientXTR delivers multicast channel update message to clientEID
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
Multicast update packets are of the following structure:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Source H3ServiceEID + |
| | IPv6
+ + |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | |
+ + |
| | |
+ Group Address + |
| | |
+ + |
| | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = xxxx | \
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum | /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| |Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
~ Nexagons Payload ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: multicast update packet header
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| Type = 1 |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: multicast update payload, key-value, key-value..
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \
| Type = 2 |gzip | Reserved |H3R15 Count = X|Nexagon
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ /
| |
+ 64bit State +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ 64bit h3.rS ID +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: multicast update payload, value, key, key.. for larger areas
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
6. Security Considerations
The LISP mobility-network is inherently secure and private.
All information is conveyed to clients using provisioned Geolocation
Services. MobilityClients receive information only via geospatial
channels originating at provisioned services, replicated by EdgeRTRs.
7. Privacy Considerations
MobilityClients have no indication as to the origin of the raw data.
In order to be able to use the mobility-network for a given period,
the mobility clients go through a DNS/AAA stage by which they obtain
temporary clientEID and RLOCs of EdgeRTRs.
This MobilityClient to EdgeRTR interface is the most sensitive from
privacy perspective. The traffic on this interface is tunneled, its
detection content may be encrypted between ClientXTR to EdgeRTR.
Still, the EdgeRTR will know based on headers the client RLOC, and
the h3.rB area a client engages with.
Enterprises such as vehicle OEMs or carriers can "bring their own"
EdgeRTRs (BYO_RTR). BYO_RTRs are pre-provisioned to be able to use the
mapping system and are put on the approved list of the other EdgeRTRs.
A carrier offering EdgeRTR services on multiaccess edge compute (MEC)
is optimal for security and for traffic steering-replication.
Beyond client to EdgeRTR hop, the mapping system does not hold
MobilityClientEIDs info. Remote EdgeRTRs are only aware of clients
temporary EIDs. When EdgeRTRs register in the mapping for channels,
they do not register which clients use which EdgeRTR.
The H3ServiceEIDs decrypt and parse actual h3.rS detections. They also
consider MobilityClientEID credentials encoded in the client EID and
assigned by AAA. This helps avoid "fake-news", e.g. poorly made or
poorly localized detections.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
In summary the privacy risk mitigations are:
(1) tapping: all communications are through tunnels therefore
may be encrypted using IP-Sec or other supported point to point
underlay standards.
(2) spoofing: it is very hard to guess a MobilityClientEID valid for
a short period of time. Clients and H3Services EIDs are provisioned
in EdgeRTRs, Clients using the AAA procedure, H3Services via dev-ops.
(3) credibility: the interface crowd-sources geo-state and does not
assume to trust single detections. Credit history track to
MobilityClientEIDs by as part of normal H3Services fact checking,
aggregate scores affect AAA credentials.
(4) geo-privacy: Only EdgeRTRs are aware of both clients' RLOC and
geo-location, only AAA is aware of client IDs credentials and credit
but not geo-location. Ongoing client credit score adjustments can span
all H3Services administratively to AAA without specific geo-source.
7. Acknowledgments
We would like to kindly thank Joel Halperin for helping structure the
AAA section and Geo-Privacy provisions, Luigi Lannone for promoting
such LISP Compute First Networking (CFN) use-cases, helping structure
the IANA section, and shepherding this draft to completion. We would
like to thank George Ericson for help clarifying Geolocation Services
terminology through joint work on the AECC specifications and papers,
and Lei Zhong for mobility dataflow virtualization terminology.
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
8. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the LISP
specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
IANA is asked to create a registry named NEXAGON Parameters.
Such registry should be populated with the following sub registries.
Nexagon Header Bits
+----------+------------------+----------+---------------------------+
| Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description |
| Name | | Position | |
+----------+------------------+----------+---------------------------+
| Type | nexagon-type | 0-7 | Type of key-value encoding|
| gzip | nexagon-gzip | 8-10 | gzip major version used |
| PairCount| nexagon-paircount| 24-31 | key-value pair count |
+----------+------------------+----------+---------------------------+
State Enumeration Field 0x0: Traffic Direction:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Lane North | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Lane North + 30 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Lane North + 60 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Lane North + 90 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Lane North + 120 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Lane North + 150 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Lane North + 180 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Lane North + 210 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Lane North + 240 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Lane North + 270 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Lane North + 300 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Lane North + 330 | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Junction | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Shoulder | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Sidewalk | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x1: Persistent Condition:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Pothole Light | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Pothole Deep | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Speed-bump Low | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Speed-bump High | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Icy | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Flooded | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Snow-cover | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Deep Snow | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Cone | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Gravel | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Choppy | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Blind-Curve | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Steep | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Low-bridge | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Other | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x2: Transient Condition:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Jaywalker | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Bike or Scooter | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Stopped Vehicle | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Moving on Shoulder | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | First Responder | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Sudden Slowdown | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Oversize Vehicle | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Light/Sign Breach | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Collision Light | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Collision Severe | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Collision Debris | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Collision Course | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Vehicle Hard Brake | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Vehicle Sharp Turn | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Freed-up Parking | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x3: Traffic-light Counter:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | 1 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | 2 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | 3 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | 4 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | 5 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | 6 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | 7 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | 8 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | 9 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | 10 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | 20 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | 30 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | 60 Second to Green | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Green Now | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Red Now | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x4: Impacted Tile:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Epicenter | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | 2 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | 3 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | 4 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | 5 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | 6 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | 7 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | 8 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | 9 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | 10 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | 20 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | 30 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | 60 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | <100 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | <200 Tiles Away | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x5: Expected Duration:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Next 1 Second | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Next 5 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Next 10 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Next 20 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Next 40 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Next 60 Seconds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Next 2 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Next 3 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Next 4 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Next 5 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Next 10 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Next 15 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Next 30 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Next 60 Minutes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Next 24 Hours | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x6: Lane Right Sign:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Yield | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Speed Limit | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Straight Only | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | No Straight | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Right Only | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | No Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Left Only | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | No Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Right Straight | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Left Straight | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | No U Turn | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | No Left or U | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Bike Lane | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | HOV Lane | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Stop | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x7: Movement Sign:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Keep Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Keep Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Stay in Lane | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Do Not Enter | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | No Trucks | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | No Bikes | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | No Peds | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | One Way | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Parking | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | No Parking | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | No Standing | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | No Passing | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Loading Zone | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Rail Crossing | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | School Zone | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x8: Curves & Intersections:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | Turns Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | Turns Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | Curves Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | Curves Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | Reverses Left | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | Reverses Right | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | Winding Road | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | Hair Pin | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | Pretzel Turn | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | Cross Roads | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | Cross T | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | Cross Y | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | Circle | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | Lane Ends | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | Road Narrows | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0x9: Tile Traffic Speed:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | < 1 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | < 2 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | < 3 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | < 4 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | < 5 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | < 6 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | < 7 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | < 8 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | < 9 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | < 10 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | < 20 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | < 30 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | < 40 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | < 50 m/sec | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | > 50 m/sec | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
State Enumeration Field 0xA: Pedestrian Curb Density:
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
| 0x0 | Null | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x1 | 100% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x2 | 95% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x3 | 90% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x4 | 85% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x5 | 80% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x6 | 70% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x7 | 60% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x8 | 50% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0x9 | 40% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xA | 30% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xB | 20% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xC | 15% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xD | 10% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xE | 5% | [This Document] |
| | | |
| 0xF | No Peds | [This Document] |
+-------+--------------------+-----------------+
State enumeration fields 0xB, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF, are unassigned.
IANA can assign them on a "First Come First Served" basis
according to [RFC8126].
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
9. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 (work in progress),
May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-31 (work in progress), May
2020.
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., Narten, T., "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC8126,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8378] Farinacci, D., Moreno, V., "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
[H3] Uber Technologies Inc. [n.d.]. H3: Ubers Hexagonal
Hierarchical Spatial Index, May 2021,
<https://eng.uber.com/h3>.
[BDD] Fisher Yu, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, Fangchen Liu, Mike
Liao, Vashisht Madhavan, and Trevor Darrell. BDD100K: A
diverse driving video database with scalable annotation
tooling. arXiv:1805.04687, 2018. 2, 3
<https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.04687>
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
Authors' Addresses
Sharon Barkai
Nexar
CA
USA
Email: sbarkai@gmail.com
Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz
Nexar
London
UK
Email: b@getnexar.com
Rotem Tamir
Nexar
Israel
rotemtamir@getnexar.com
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: natal@cisco.com
Fabio Maino
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LISP June 2022
Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
Technical University of Catalonia
Barcelona
Spain
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Jordi Paillisse-Vilanova
Technical University of Catalonia
Barcelona
Spain
Email: jordip@ac.upc.edu
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Barkai, et al. Expires September 10, 2022 [Page 30]
