Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft V. Fuller
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) D. Meyer
Intended status: Standards Track D. Lewis
Expires: January 18, 2019 Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech
July 17, 2018
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
Abstract
This document describes the Data-Plane protocol for the Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
(RLOCs) that identify network attachment points. With this, LISP
effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.
LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
among other features.
This document obsoletes RFC 6830.
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 January 18, 2019.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 21
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 28
13.1. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
18.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 38
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 38
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 38
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 38
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 38
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 39
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 39
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 39
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 39
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 40
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 40
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 40
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 40
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 40
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 41
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Introduction
This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
(LISP). LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result
LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
attachment points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between
the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by
devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network
infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP
encapsulation uses a dynamic form of tunneling where no static
provisioning is required or necessary.
LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from Data-Plane,
this document specifies the Data-Plane, how LISP-capable routers
(Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the
appropriate location. Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache,
called Map-Cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The Map-Cache
is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to
underlay routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP
offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among
other features.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
October 2006 (see [RFC4984]).
This document specifies the LISP Data-Plane encapsulation and other
LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
specifies the LISP control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can be
found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network
operational management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
describes the LISP architecture.
This document obsoletes RFC 6830.
2. Requirements Notation
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].
3. Definition of Terms
Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI is a term used to describe an
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to
the Data-Plane. See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for details. An AFI
value of 0 used in this specification indicates an unspecified
encoded address where the length of the address is 0 octets
following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.
Anycast Address: Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
multiple systems at the same time. An EID or RLOC can be an
anycast address in each of their own address spaces.
Client-side: Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
a connection initiation attempt by an end-system represented by an
EID.
Data-Probe: A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header
destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating
ETR. In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and
delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the
EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR. Otherwise, the packet is
discarded. A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database
designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other
cases, Map-Requests are used. See each mapping database design
for details. When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as well.
EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global
distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
mappings. Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of
the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes
"behind" the router. These map to one of the router's own
globally visible IP addresses. Note that there MAY be transient
conditions when the EID-Prefix for the site and Locator-Set for
each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs. This has no
negative implications, since a partial set of Locators can be
used.
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is generally
short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is
responsible for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC
mappings. This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-
to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and
relatively small, while the database is distributed, relatively
static, and much more global in scope.
EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID-
Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix
allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set
is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.
End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing
domain). An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router
device, or any network appliance.
Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is 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 Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
host's "local" IP address. An EID used on the public Internet
MUST have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
manner; this means, among other things, that it MUST be globally
unique. 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. Note that EID blocks MAY
be assigned in a hierarchical manner, independent of the network
topology, to facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In
addition, an EID block assigned to a site MAY have site-local
structure (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure
is not visible to the global routing system. In theory, the bit
string that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC
for a different device. When used in discussions with other
Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an
"LEID". Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer
to an LEID.
Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a
LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then
prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this
destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has
better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the Internet on the other side.
Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
regarded as an ITR. The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's
supplied EID).
LISP Header: LISP header is a term used in this document to refer
to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR
prepends or an ETR strips.
LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR),
or Proxy-ETR (PETR).
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
LISP Site: LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
under a single technical administration. LISP routers that reside
in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
edge network from the core network.
Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section 10.
Negative Mapping Entry: A negative mapping entry, also known as a
negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix
is advertised or stored with no RLOCs. That is, the Locator-Set
for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count
of 0. This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from
a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database.
There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a
Negative Map-Reply.
Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.
Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at LISP sites.
Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
as needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
header.
Re-Encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to
remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this
allows a packet to be re-routed by the RTR without adding the
overhead of additional tunnel headers. When using multiple
mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-
encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.
Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the
underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.
When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
destination of the original message appears as the source of the
returned message.
Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is
the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to zero
or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are
assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the
underlay network; where the topology is defined by the
connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.
Server-side: Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate
that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a
destination EID.
TE-ETR: A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider
network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering
purposes.
TE-ITR: A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider
network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic
Engineering purposes.
xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
functionality at the CE router.
4. Basic Overview
One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they
do today. The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and
connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do not change.
In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs).
Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). Most routers along a path
between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/
forwarding lookups on the destination addresses. For routers between
the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
destination host, the destination address is an EID. For the routers
between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.
Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router". A Tunnel Router
prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in
this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange
between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to-
RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the
RLOC as one of its IP addresses.
Some basic rules governing LISP are:
o End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are
typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID are
supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for further information). End-
systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume
that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system
where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed
packets and assist in delivering them across the network core
where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP
packets does not change.
o LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses. See
details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".
o RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.
o When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address
either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when
terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH),
TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID
that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP
configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions
to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to
terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site.
o Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to-
end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are
expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be
encapsulated for inter-site communication.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
o EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).
An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired. A potential
use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such
a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header
would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic
engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic
engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists).
In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
encapsulation loops, this document recommends that a maximum of two
LISP headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP
deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the
first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity
separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service
provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.
Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
connected to the destination host. Another example, perhaps for a
VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.
4.1. Packet Flow Sequence
This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow,
including also Control-Plane information as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The example also assumes the following
conditions:
o Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site
was not using LISP.
o Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
(RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
o The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
located anywhere in the LISP site.
o A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the
destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a
default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database
system by using the LISP Control-Plane protocol documented in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
o Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology
using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Control-Plane protocol.
Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server
host2.xyz.example.com:
1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on
host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This
address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of
host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6
packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.
2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
of one of the ETRs at the destination site. The specific method
used to do this is not described in this example. See
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for further information.
3. The ITR sends a LISP Map-Request as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Map-Requests SHOULD be rate-limited.
4. The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the
corresponding ETR. When the Map-Request arrives at one of the
ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
control message.
5. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to-
RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR
is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no match,
the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is
returned to the ITR.
6. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to
check for format validity), and stores the mapping information
from the packet. This information is stored in the ITR's EID-to-
RLOC Map-Cache. Note that the Map-Cache is an on-demand cache.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in such a way that optimizes for
its resource constraints.
7. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the
ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent
to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
Locator-Set policy.
8. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
the attached destination host.
9. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps
the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source
RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet.
Such a cache entry is termed a "glean mapping" and only contains
a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete information
about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending a LISP Map-
Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY also
influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC.
5. LISP Encapsulation Details
Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to
the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get
fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet
is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is
returned to the source.
In the case when fragmentation is needed, this specification
RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support for one of the
proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes. Two existing schemes
are detailed in Section 7.
Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6
packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header
is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined
in [RFC8060].
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source Routing Locator |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source EID |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination EID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IHL = IP-Header-Length
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
| |
O + +
u | |
t + Source Routing Locator +
e | |
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
r + +
| |
^ + Destination Routing Locator +
| | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
I + +
n | |
n + Source EID +
e | |
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
r + +
| |
^ + Destination EID +
\ | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the
datagram received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200]
[RFC2474]. The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.
Outer Header: (OH) The outer header is a new header prepended by an
ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)"
from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and
7.2.
UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when
encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash
algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the
inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known
IANA-assigned port value 4341.
UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and IPv6 encapsulation
[RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform
such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
silently dropped. If the ETR chooses not to perform the
verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP
zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].
UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
the UDP and LISP headers.
N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1,
the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
contain a Nonce. See Section 10.1 for details. Both N- and
V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a
decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
having a Nonce value present.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When
this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
32 bits of the LISP header are in use.
x 1 x x 0 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be ignored
and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the N-bit is
set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the
nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See
Section 10.1 for details.
V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set to
1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 13.1 for more details.
This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this
case as:
0 x 0 1 x x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more details.
When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is
reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an
Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits
are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format of the
LISP header would look like this:
x x x x 1 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID | LSBs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R: The R-bit is a Reserved bit for future use. It MUST be set to 0
on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are
encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information.
LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce
generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
required to generate different nonces when sending to different
RLOCs. However, the same nonce can be used for a period of time
when encapsulating to the same ETR. The nonce is also used when
the E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the
other side when packets are returned. When the E-bit is clear but
the N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously
requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce. See
Section 10.1 for more details.
LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the
'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a
Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See
Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
that the inner-header source EID address matches. If the LSB for
an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC
with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.
When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:
o The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
Live' field.
o The outer-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field
(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
copied from the inner-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer
header.
When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:
o The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
less than the Time to Live value of the inner header. Failing to
perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header
to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This
check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.
o The inner-header 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) field
(or the 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
copied from the outer-header DSCP field ('Traffic Class' field, in
the case of IPv6) considering the exception listed below.
o The 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) field (bits 6 and 7
of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field) requires special treatment in
order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. If
the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then
ETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the
stripped outer header to the surviving inner header that is used
to forward the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve
CE indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel
and becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between
the tunnel endpoints.
Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
header minus 1.
Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
misconfiguration.
The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6
and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic
Class' field [RFC3168]. The 'ECN' field requires special treatment
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168]. An
ITR/PITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
header to the outer header. Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR/
PETR decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped
outer header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward
the packet beyond the ETR. These requirements preserve CE
indications when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and
becomes marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the
tunnel endpoints.
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to-
RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator
sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to
the corresponding RLOC network attachment point.
When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the
EID is done to the Map-Cache.
When the lookup succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from the Map-
Cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location.
If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using
the LISP Control-Plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. The
mapping is then stored in the local Map-Cache to forward subsequent
packets addressed to the same EID-prefix.
The Map-Cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based
on the associated Time to live. In addition, entries can be updated
with more current information, see Section 13 for further information
on this. Finally, the Map-Cache also contains reachability
information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability
information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see
Section 10 for the specific mechanisms.
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets
This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed
the path MTU between the ITR and ETR.
It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.
Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
also apply to a TE-ITR.
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows:
1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header
lengths.
2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
intermediate routers to fragment the packet.
3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the
effective MTU can be met. That is, L = S + H.
When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets
from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the
original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then
prepended to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments
is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path
MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.
When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and
then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the
destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.
This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates
a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0. When the
'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6
packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet
when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/
Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S
is (L - H).
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU
issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.
This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500.
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows
and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]:
1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can
deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.
2. When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet
with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can
deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message to the ITR. The
ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is
affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new
effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry.
3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Unreachable/
Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source. The packet size
advertised by the ITR in the ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-
Needed message is the effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation
length.
Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP
There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level.
For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping
addresses, traffic isolation policies or multi-tenant virtualization.
For these and other scenarios where segregation is needed, Instance
IDs are used.
An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An ITR
that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied
to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
to 1.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
to use for the inner destination EID lookup.
For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for LISP VPN use-case
details.
The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT
[RFC8111] is used is 32 bits in length. That means the Control-Plane
can store more instances than a given Data-Plane can use. Multiple
Data-Planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as the low-order 24
bits don't overlap among xTRs.
9. Routing Locator Selection
The Map-Cache contains the state used by ITRs and PITRs to
encapsulate packets. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside
the LISP site to a destination outside of the site a longest-prefix
match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache (see Section 6).
The lookup returns a single Locator-Set containing a list of RLOCs
corresponding to the EID's topological location. Each RLOC in the
Locator-Set is associated with a 'Priority' and 'Weight', this
information is used to select the RLOC to encapsulate.
The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' is selected. An RLOC with
'Priority' 255 means that MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When
multiple RLOC have the same 'Priority' then the 'Weight' states how
to load balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight'
represents the relative weight of the total packets that match the
maping entry.
The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
controls that are available:
o The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use
one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection.
o The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset
list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In
this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load-
splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs
outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some
sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
list are unreachable.
o The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list.
In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
spread across the subset list. Control is shared by the server-
side determining the list and the client-side determining load
distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.
o Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send
a Map-Request. For example, if the server-side ETR does not send
Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the
client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability
and preferability. Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side
ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the
outer-header source RLOC of received packets. The client-side ITR
controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer-
header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the
server-side ETR uses to return traffic. Since no Priority or
Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST
assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority
with a Weight of zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding
cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on
Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large.
Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be gleaned from received tunneled
packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request messages. A "gleaned" Map-Cache
entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a received encapsulated
packet, is only stored and used for a few seconds, pending
verification. Verification is performed by sending a Map-Request to
the source EID (the inner-header IP source address) of the received
encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is used
to fully populate the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is
stored and used for the time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a
received Map-Reply. When a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data
gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent packets that have a source
EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the verified entry. This
"gleaning" mechanism is OPTIONAL, refer to Section 16 for security
issues regarding this mechanism.
RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1. When
the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the
RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
stored in the mapping database system provides reachability
information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the
mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing
Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section.
10. Routing Locator Reachability
Several Data-Plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are
currently defined. Please note that additional Control-Plane based
reachability mechanisms are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is
also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
RLOC.
2. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up.
3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Locator reachability
algorithms described in this section.
When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
IGP as follows:
o Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
route into the site IGP.
o If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its
default route will either time out or be withdrawn.
Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
for them.
When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided
they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32
address is configured on a loopback interface.
RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The
Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal
value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
the packets they encapsulate.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in
the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the
ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating
packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It will only resume
using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set
per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the
Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the
list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that
particular EID-Prefix. Refer to Section 16 for security related
issues regarding Locator-Status-Bits.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from
the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived. In
most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to
be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence
of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD
NOT use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is
unreachable. Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to
determine reachability.
10.1. Echo Nonce Algorithm
When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different
sites, a Data-Plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to
determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to
solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit
nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data
packet.
When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is
forwarded as normal. When the ETR next sends a data packet to the
ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set and
E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the
path to and from the ETR is up.
The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
in the echo-nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process
the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is
variable and is a choice left for the implementation.
If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the
nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision MAY be overridden by
other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that
the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for
that EID-Prefix.
Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST
be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce
mechanism to operate.
The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the
same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo
nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting.
However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo
the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and
subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request packets.
This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path
reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the
ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an ITR
that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is
unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.
The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the
E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the
echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD only set
the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is
enabled for echo-noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the RLOC-
probe Map-Reply message.
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site
A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and
infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
mapping system. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an
ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data
header.
It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site
partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the
EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub-
ranges of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem
introduced by the LISP architecture. The problem exists today when a
multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its reachability upstream.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
12. Routing Locator Hashing
When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message
that is stored in the Map-Cache of a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set
for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values
for each locator address. When more than one best Priority Locator
exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against the
corresponding Locators.
The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a
Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:
1. Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional
5-tuple hash can be used. The traditional 5-tuple hash includes
the source and destination addresses; source and destination TCP,
UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers;
and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of
a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site. When a
packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and
destination addresses only from the header are used to compute
the hash.
2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.
3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the
Locator-Set.
Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number
in the outer UDP header needs to be set. Selecting a hashed value
allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups
(LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of
such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since
packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are
originated by different EIDs at the source site. A suggested setting
for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash
function on the inner header, as described above.
Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not
know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
which ITRs requested its mappings. For scalability reasons, it is
desirable to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for
ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently
communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.
This section defines a Data-Plane mechanism for updating EID-to-RLOC
mappings. Additionally, the Solicit-Map Request (SMR) Control-Plane
updating mechanism is specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end of
a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings. We assume that new
mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping
but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list. So,
some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old
mapping that is used until they time out. When an ITR has only an
old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that
correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply
ignores them. However, this can only happen for locator addresses
that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in the
existing Locator-Set.
When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, to
maintain lexicographic order, SMR procedure
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] is used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the
new Locator-Status-Bit mappings.
When a Locator record is removed from a Locator-Set, ITRs that have
the mapping cached will not use the removed Locator because the xTRs
will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0. So, even if the Locator is in
the list, it will not be used. For new mapping requests, the xTRs
can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as
well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0. This
forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed
Locator.
If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one
will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new
records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be
useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings
can be efficiently packed.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
We propose here a Data-Plane mechanism (Map-Versioning) to update the
contents of EID-to-RLOC mappings. Please note that in addition the
Solicit-Map Request (specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) is a
Control-Plane mechanisms that can be used to update EID-to-RLOC
mappings.
13.1. Database Map-Versioning
When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.
An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version
Number. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number. ITRs
include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and
detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the
current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] occurs.
An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map-
Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.
When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map-
Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a
Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one
of the ETRs for the source site.
A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so
values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of
0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version
Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no
comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.
A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
well. This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs
for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map-
Version Number.
See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for a more detailed analysis and
description of Database Map-Versioning.
14. Multicast Considerations
A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself
does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates,
determine where the receivers are located.
In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
a Routing Locator. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs
to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP
header. Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP
header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID.
The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address),
prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the
destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing
Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means to
determine the group address mapping.
With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR prepends
its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header.
Just like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address.
This source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator
address, MUST be globally routable.
There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native
multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping
System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay
with support from the Mapping System. See [RFC6831] and [RFC8378],
respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and
interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and
[RFC6832].
15. Router Performance Considerations
LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly". A
few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement
LISP:
o When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
destination address may not be the address of the router. This
makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
that Control-Plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding
logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to
existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP Data-
Plane.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
o On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part
of the outgoing encapsulation procedure. Routers that support
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action.
o A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on
can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). The VRF's
routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.
For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see
Section 16.
16. Security Considerations
Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833].
A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what
follows we provide a summary.
The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a
mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR can
learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and
source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping
into its Map-Cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID
address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If
the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by
redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially
overloading it.
The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC Data-
Plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce-
Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be
manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path
attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate such
mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable. This can be used
also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim
of overload it.
Map-Versioning is a Data-Plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR
that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the
peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a
fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map-
versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive
amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them.
Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment
and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
or gleaning) SHOULD be verified with other reachability mechanisms.
In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective
technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the Control-Plane.
17. Network Management Considerations
Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be
found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].
18. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
Data-Plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].
18.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers
The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP
Data-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as
follows:
lisp-data 4341 udp LISP Data Packets
19. References
19.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 (work in progress), March
2018.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
19.2. Informative References
[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.
[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed",
1999,
<http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-02 (work in
progress), May 2018.
[OPENLISP]
Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.
[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
January 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.
[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
[RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.
[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.
[RFC7833] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A
RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier
Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security
Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>.
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors.
A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
practical and incremental transition for the Internet.
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have
contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal.
They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller,
Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston,
David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley,
Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler,
Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi
Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry
Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van
Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien
Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David
Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin,
Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari
Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu,
Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina
Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils,
Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez.
This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working
group document that became this RFC.
The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.
Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14
o Posted July 2018 IETF week.
o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13
o Posted July 2018.
o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12
o Posted March IETF Week 2018.
o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.
o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
OAM document.
o Some references changed from normative to informative
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11
o Posted March 2018.
o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and
Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM
document.
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10
o Posted March 2018.
o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-
Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and
weights).
o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2
(ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port
Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC
probing
o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09
o Posted January 2018.
o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
encapsulation and decapsulation.
o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section
from various commenters.
o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.
o More editorial changes.
o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08
o Posted January 2018.
o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.
o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.
o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
Iannone.
o Ran IDNITs on the document.
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07
o Posted November 2017.
o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
addresses.
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06
o Posted October 2017.
o Put RTR definition before it is used.
o Rename references that are now working group drafts.
o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other
hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".
o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.
o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.
o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.
o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.
o Clarify when private addreses can be used.
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05
o Posted August 2017.
o Make it clear that a Reencapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04
o Posted July 2017.
o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.
o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03
o Posted May 2017.
o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis.
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02
o Posted April 2017.
o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01
o Posted March 2017.
o Include references to new RFCs published.
o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.
o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
o Remove references to "experimental".
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00
o Posted December 2016.
o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: farinacci@gmail.com
Vince Fuller
Cisco Systems
Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com
Dave Meyer
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net
Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA
EMail: darlewis@cisco.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft LISP July 2018
Albert Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech
Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3
Barcelona, Catalunya
Spain
EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu
Farinacci, et al. Expires January 18, 2019 [Page 42]
