Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06

Network Working Group                                          V. Fuller
Internet-Draft                                              D. Farinacci
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: April 8, 2018                                 A. Cabellos (Ed.)
                                                       UPC/BarcelonaTech
                                                         October 5, 2017


          Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane
                     draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06

Abstract

   This document describes the Control-Plane and Mapping Service for the
   Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), implemented by two new types
   of LISP-speaking devices -- the LISP Map-Resolver and LISP Map-Server
   -- that provides a simplified "front end" for one or more Endpoint ID
   to Routing Locator mapping databases.

   By using this control-plane service interface and communicating with
   Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and
   Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of
   mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different
   database designs.  Since these devices implement the "edge" of the
   LISP infrastructure, connect directly to LISP-capable Internet end
   sites, and comprise the bulk of LISP-speaking devices, reducing their
   implementation and operational complexity should also reduce the
   overall cost and effort of deploying LISP.

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 April 8, 2018.






Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Basic Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  LISP Control Packet Type Allocations  . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Map-Request Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.4.  Map-Reply Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.5.  EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.6.  Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     4.7.  Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format  . . . . . . . .  25
     4.8.  Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   5.  Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     5.1.  ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     5.2.  EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . .  29
     5.3.  Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     5.4.  Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.4.1.  Anycast Map-Resolver Operation  . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     7.1.  LISP Packet Type Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     7.2.  LISP ACT and Flag Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     7.3.  LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     7.4.  LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06  . . . . . . . .  39
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05  . . . . . . . .  39



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04  . . . . . . . .  39
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03  . . . . . . . .  40
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02  . . . . . . . .  40
     B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01  . . . . . . . .  40
     B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00  . . . . . . . .  40
     B.8.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . .  41
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41

1.  Introduction

   The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] and
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies an architecture and mechanism
   for replacing the addresses currently used by IP with two separate
   name spaces: Endpoint IDs (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing
   Locators (RLOCs), used on the transit networks that make up the
   Internet infrastructure.  To achieve this separation, LISP defines
   protocol mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs.  In addition,
   LISP assumes the existence of a database to store and propagate those
   mappings globally.  Several such databases have been proposed; among
   them are the Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP
   (LISP-CONS) [LISP-CONS], LISP-NERD (a Not-so-novel EID-to-RLOC
   Database) [RFC6837], LISP Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT)
   [RFC6836], and LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT) [RFC8111].

   The LISP Mapping Service defines two new types of LISP-speaking
   devices: the Map-Resolver, which accepts Map-Requests from an Ingress
   Tunnel Router (ITR) and "resolves" the EID-to-RLOC mapping using a
   mapping database; and the Map-Server, which learns authoritative EID-
   to-RLOC mappings from an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) and publishes
   them in a database.

   This LISP Control-Plane Mapping Service can be used by many different
   encapsulation-based or translation-based data-planes which include
   but are not limited to the ones defined in LISP RFC 6830bis
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], LISP-GPE [I-D.lewis-lisp-gpe], VXLAN
   [RFC7348], and VXLAN-GPE [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe].

   Conceptually, LISP Map-Servers share some of the same basic
   configuration and maintenance properties as Domain Name System (DNS)
   [RFC1035] servers; likewise, Map-Resolvers are conceptually similar
   to DNS caching resolvers.  With this in mind, this specification
   borrows familiar terminology (resolver and server) from the DNS
   specifications.

   Note that while this document assumes a LISP+ALT database mapping
   infrastructure to illustrate certain aspects of Map-Server and Map-
   Resolver operation, the Mapping Service interface can (and likely




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   will) be used by ITRs and ETRs to access other mapping database
   systems as the LISP infrastructure evolves.

   The LISP Mapping Service is an important component of the LISP
   toolset.  Issues and concerns about the deployment of LISP for
   Internet traffic are discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].

2.  Definition of Terms

   Map-Server:   A network infrastructure component that learns of EID-
      Prefix mapping entries from an ETR, via the registration mechanism
      described below, or some other authoritative source if one exists.
      A Map-Server publishes these EID-Prefixes in a mapping database.

   Map-Resolver:   A network infrastructure component that accepts LISP
      Encapsulated Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, and determines
      whether or not the destination IP address is part of the EID
      namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is returned.
      Otherwise, the Map-Resolver finds the appropriate EID-to-RLOC
      mapping by consulting a mapping database system.

   Encapsulated Map-Request:   A LISP Map-Request carried within an
      Encapsulated Control Message, which has an additional LISP header
      prepended.  Sent to UDP destination port 4342.  The "outer"
      addresses are globally routable IP addresses, also known as RLOCs.
      Used by an ITR when sending to a Map-Resolver and by a Map-Server
      when forwarding a Map-Request to an ETR.

   Negative Map-Reply:   A LISP Map-Reply that contains an empty
      Locator-Set. Returned in response to a Map-Request if the
      destination EID does not exist in the mapping database.
      Typically, this means that the "EID" being requested is an IP
      address connected to a non-LISP site.

   Map-Register message:   A LISP message sent by an ETR to a Map-Server
      to register its associated EID-Prefixes.  In addition to the set
      of EID-Prefixes to register, the message includes one or more
      RLOCs to be used by the Map-Server when forwarding Map-Requests
      (re-formatted as Encapsulated Map-Requests) received through the
      database mapping system.  An ETR may request that the Map-Server
      answer Map-Requests on its behalf by setting the "proxy Map-Reply"
      flag (P-bit) in the message.

   Map-Notify message:   A LISP message sent by a Map-Server to an ETR
      to confirm that a Map-Register has been received and processed.
      An ETR requests that a Map-Notify be returned by setting the
      "want-map-notify" flag (M-bit) in the Map-Register message.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


      Unlike a Map-Reply, a Map-Notify uses UDP port 4342 for both
      source and destination.

   For definitions of other terms -- notably Map-Request, Map-Reply,
   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR), and Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) -- please
   consult the LISP specification [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].

3.  Basic Overview

   A Map-Server is a device that publishes EID-Prefixes in a LISP
   mapping database on behalf of a set of ETRs.  When it receives a Map
   Request (typically from an ITR), it consults the mapping database to
   find an ETR that can answer with the set of RLOCs for an EID-Prefix.
   To publish its EID-Prefixes, an ETR periodically sends Map-Register
   messages to the Map-Server.  A Map-Register message contains a list
   of EID-Prefixes plus a set of RLOCs that can be used to reach the ETR
   when a Map-Server needs to forward a Map-Request to it.

   When LISP+ALT is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server connects
   to the ALT network and acts as a "last-hop" ALT-Router.  Intermediate
   ALT-Routers forward Map-Requests to the Map-Server that advertises a
   particular EID-Prefix, and the Map-Server forwards them to the owning
   ETR, which responds with Map-Reply messages.

   When LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server
   sends the final Map-Referral messages from the Delegated Database
   Tree.

   A Map-Resolver receives Encapsulated Map-Requests from its client
   ITRs and uses a mapping database system to find the appropriate ETR
   to answer those requests.  On a LISP+ALT network, a Map-Resolver acts
   as a "first-hop" ALT-Router.  It has Generic Routing Encapsulation
   (GRE) tunnels configured to other ALT-Routers and uses BGP to learn
   paths to ETRs for different prefixes in the LISP+ALT database.  The
   Map-Resolver uses this path information to forward Map-Requests over
   the ALT to the correct ETRs.  On a LISP-DDT network [RFC8111], a Map-
   Resolver maintains a referral-cache and acts as a "first-hop" DDT-
   node.  The Map-Resolver uses the referral information to forward Map-
   Requests.

   Note that while it is conceivable that a non-LISP-DDT Map-Resolver
   could cache responses to improve performance, issues surrounding
   cache management will need to be resolved so that doing so will be
   reliable and practical.  As initially deployed, Map-Resolvers will
   operate only in a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding
   Encapsulated Map Requests received from ITRs.  Any specification of
   caching functionality is left for future work.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   Note that a single device can implement the functions of both a Map-
   Server and a Map-Resolver, and in many cases the functions will be
   co-located in that way.  Also, there can be ALT-only nodes and DDT-
   only nodes, when LISP+ALT and LISP-DDT are used, respectively, to
   connect Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers together to make up the Mapping
   System.

   Detailed descriptions of the LISP packet types referenced by this
   document may be found in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].










































Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.  LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats

   The following UDP packet formats are used by the LISP control plane.

       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  |Type of Service|          Total Length         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Time to Live | Protocol = 17 |         Header Checksum       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    Source Routing Locator                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 Destination Routing Locator                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |           Source Port         |         Dest Port             |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                         LISP Message                          |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


        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=17|   Hop Limit   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +                     Source Routing Locator                    +
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +                  Destination Routing Locator                  +
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |           Source Port         |         Dest Port             |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                         LISP Message                          |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The LISP UDP-based messages are the Map-Request and Map-Reply
   messages.  When a UDP Map-Request is sent, the UDP source port is
   chosen by the sender and the destination UDP port number is set to
   4342.  When a UDP Map-Reply is sent, the source UDP port number is
   set to 4342 and the destination UDP port number is copied from the
   source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet.
   Implementations MUST be prepared to accept packets when either the
   source port or destination UDP port is set to 4342 due to NATs
   changing port number values.

   The 'UDP Length' field will reflect the length of the UDP header and
   the LISP Message payload.

   The UDP checksum is computed and set to non-zero for Map-Request,
   Map-Reply, Map-Register, and Encapsulated Control Message (ECM)
   control messages.  It MUST be checked on receipt, and if the checksum
   fails, the packet MUST be dropped.

   The format of control messages includes the UDP header so the
   checksum and length fields can be used to protect and delimit message
   boundaries.



















Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.1.  LISP Control Packet Type Allocations

   This section defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes
   for IANA the LISP Type codes assigned by this document.  For
   completeness, this document references the LISP Shared Extension
   Message assigned by [RFC8113].  Message type definitions are:

    Reserved:                          0     b'0000'
    LISP Map-Request:                  1     b'0001'
    LISP Map-Reply:                    2     b'0010'
    LISP Map-Register:                 3     b'0011'
    LISP Map-Notify:                   4     b'0100'
    LISP Map-Notify-Ack:               5     b'0101'
    LISP Map-Referral:                 6     b'0110'
    LISP Encapsulated Control Message: 8     b'1000'
    Not Assigned                       9-14  b'1001'- b'1110'
    LISP Shared Extension Message:     15    b'1111'           [RFC8113]

   Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to
   procedures in [RFC5226].  Documents that request for a new LISP
   packet type may indicate a preferred value in Section 7.3.

   Protocol designers experimenting with new message formats should use
   the LISP Shared Extension Message Type and request a [RFC8113] sub-
   type assignment.

   All LISP control-plane messages use Address Family Identifiers (AFI)
   [AFI] or LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] formats to
   encode either fixed or variable length addresses.  This includes
   explicit fields in each control message or part of EID-records or
   RLOC-records in commonly formatted messages.

   The LISP control-plane describes how other data-planes can encode
   messages to support the SMR and RLOC-probing procedures of the LISP
   data-plane defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  This control-plane
   specification itself does not offer such functionality and other
   data-planes can use their own mechanisms that do not rely on the LISP
   control-plane.













Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.2.  Map-Request Message 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|m|I|  Rsvd   |L|D|   IRC   | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         Source-EID-AFI        |   Source EID Address  ...     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         ITR-RLOC-AFI 1        |    ITR-RLOC Address 1  ...    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         ITR-RLOC-AFI n        |    ITR-RLOC Address n  ...    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |   Reserved    | EID mask-len  |        EID-Prefix-AFI         |
   Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                       EID-Prefix  ...                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   Map-Reply Record  ...                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Packet field descriptions:

   Type:   1 (Map-Request)

   A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map-
      Requests sent by an ITR.  It is set to 1 when an ITR wants the
      destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping
      database system.

   M: This is the map-data-present bit.  When set, it indicates that a
      Map-Reply Record segment is included in the Map-Request.

   P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that a Map-Request SHOULD
      be treated as a Locator reachability probe.  The receiver SHOULD
      respond with a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set, indicating that
      the Map-Reply is a Locator reachability probe reply, with the
      nonce copied from the Map-Request.  See RLOC-Probing
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for more details.

   S: This is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit.  See Solicit-Map-
      Request (SMRs) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for details.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   p: This is the PITR bit.  This bit is set to 1 when a PITR sends a
      Map-Request.

   s: This is the SMR-invoked bit.  This bit is set to 1 when an xTR is
      sending a Map-Request in response to a received SMR-based Map-
      Request.

   m: This is the LISP mobile-node m-bit.  This bit is set by xTRs that
      operate as a mobile node as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn].

   I: This is the xTR-ID bit.  When this bit is set, what is appended to
      the Map-Request is a 128-bit xTR router-ID.  See LISP PubSub usage
      procedures in [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub] for details.

   Rsvd:  This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on
      receipt.

   L: This is the local-xtr bit.  It is used by an xTR in a LISP site to
      tell other xTRs in the same site that it is local to the site.
      That is, that it is part of the RLOC-set for the LISP site.

   D: This is the dont-map-reply bit.  It is used in the SMR procedure
      described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  When an xTR sends an SMR
      Map-Request message, it doesn't need a Map-Reply returned.  When
      this bit is set, the receiver of the Map-Request does not return a
      Map-Reply.

   IRC:  This 5-bit field is the ITR-RLOC Count, which encodes the
      additional number of ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC Address') fields
      present in this message.  At least one (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC-
      Address) pair MUST be encoded.  Multiple 'ITR-RLOC Address' fields
      are used, so a Map-Replier can select which destination address to
      use for a Map-Reply.  The IRC value ranges from 0 to 31.  For a
      value of 0, there is 1 ITR-RLOC address encoded; for a value of 1,
      there are 2 ITR-RLOC addresses encoded, and so on up to 31, which
      encodes a total of 32 ITR-RLOC addresses.

   Record Count:  This is the number of records in this Map-Request
      message.  A record is comprised of the portion of the packet that
      is labeled 'Rec' above and occurs the number of times equal to
      Record Count.  For this version of the protocol, a receiver MUST
      accept and process Map-Requests that contain one or more records,
      but a sender MUST only send Map-Requests containing one record.
      Support for requesting multiple EIDs in a single Map-Request
      message will be specified in a future version of the protocol.

   Nonce:  This is an 8-octet random value created by the sender of the
      Map-Request.  This nonce will be returned in the Map-Reply.  The



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


      security of the LISP mapping protocol critically depends on the
      strength of the nonce in the Map-Request message.  The nonce
      SHOULD be generated by a properly seeded pseudo-random (or strong
      random) source.  See [RFC4086] for advice on generating security-
      sensitive random data.

   Source-EID-AFI:  This is the address family of the 'Source EID
      Address' field.

   Source EID Address:  This is the EID of the source host that
      originated the packet that caused the Map-Request.  When Map-
      Requests are used for refreshing a Map-Cache entry or for RLOC-
      Probing, an AFI value 0 is used and this field is of zero length.

   ITR-RLOC-AFI:  This is the address family of the 'ITR-RLOC Address'
      field that follows this field.

   ITR-RLOC Address:  This is used to give the ETR the option of
      selecting the destination address from any address family for the
      Map-Reply message.  This address MUST be a routable RLOC address
      of the sender of the Map-Request message.

   EID mask-len:  This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix.

   EID-Prefix-AFI:  This is the address family of the EID-Prefix
      according to [AFI] and [RFC8060].

   EID-Prefix:  This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and
      16 octets for an IPv6 address family.  When a Map-Request is sent
      by an ITR because a data packet is received for a destination
      where there is no mapping entry, the EID-Prefix is set to the
      destination IP address of the data packet, and the 'EID mask-len'
      is set to 32 or 128 for IPv4 or IPv6, respectively.  When an xTR
      wants to query a site about the status of a mapping it already has
      cached, the EID-Prefix used in the Map-Request has the same mask
      length as the EID-Prefix returned from the site when it sent a
      Map-Reply message.

   Map-Reply Record:  When the M-bit is set, this field is the size of a
      single "Record" in the Map-Reply format.  This Map-Reply record
      contains the EID-to-RLOC mapping entry associated with the Source
      EID.  This allows the ETR that will receive this Map-Request to
      cache the data if it chooses to do so.








Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.3.  EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message

   A Map-Request is sent from an ITR when it needs a mapping for an EID,
   wants to test an RLOC for reachability, or wants to refresh a mapping
   before TTL expiration.  For the initial case, the destination IP
   address used for the Map-Request is the data packet's destination
   address (i.e., the destination EID) that had a mapping cache lookup
   failure.  For the latter two cases, the destination IP address used
   for the Map-Request is one of the RLOC addresses from the Locator-Set
   of the Map-Cache entry.  The source address is either an IPv4 or IPv6
   RLOC address, depending on whether the Map-Request is using an IPv4
   or IPv6 header, respectively.  In all cases, the UDP source port
   number for the Map-Request message is a 16-bit value selected by the
   ITR/PITR, and the UDP destination port number is set to the well-
   known destination port number 4342.  A successful Map-Reply, which is
   one that has a nonce that matches an outstanding Map-Request nonce,
   will update the cached set of RLOCs associated with the EID-Prefix
   range.

   One or more Map-Request ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC-Address') fields
   MUST be filled in by the ITR.  The number of fields (minus 1) encoded
   MUST be placed in the 'IRC' field.  The ITR MAY include all locally
   configured Locators in this list or just provide one locator address
   from each address family it supports.  If the ITR erroneously
   provides no ITR-RLOC addresses, the Map-Replier MUST drop the Map-
   Request.

   Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination
   port 4342 with a LISP Type value set to "Encapsulated Control
   Message", when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver.  Likewise, Map-
   Requests are LISP encapsulated the same way from a Map-Server to an
   ETR.  Details on Encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be
   found in Section 4.8.

   Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited.  It is RECOMMENDED that a Map-
   Request for the same EID-Prefix be sent no more than once per second.

   An ITR that is configured with mapping database information (i.e., it
   is also an ETR) MAY optionally include those mappings in a Map-
   Request.  When an ETR configured to accept and verify such
   "piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request and it does
   not have this mapping in the map-cache, it MAY originate a "verifying
   Map-Request", addressed to the map-requesting ITR and the ETR MAY add
   a Map-Cache entry.  If the ETR has a Map-Cache entry that matches the
   "piggybacked" EID and the RLOC is in the Locator-Set for the entry,
   then it may send the "verifying Map-Request" directly to the
   originating Map-Request source.  If the RLOC is not in the Locator-
   Set, then the ETR MUST send the "verifying Map-Request" to the



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   "piggybacked" EID.  Doing this forces the "verifying Map-Request" to
   go through the mapping database system to reach the authoritative
   source of information about that EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing
   in the "piggybacked" mapping data.















































Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.4.  Map-Reply Message 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=2 |P|E|S|          Reserved               | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                          Record TTL                           |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
   e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   c   | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   |       EID-Prefix-AFI          |
   o   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   r   |                          EID-Prefix                           |
   d   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
   | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |
   | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  \|                             Locator                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Packet field descriptions:

   Type:   2 (Map-Reply)

   P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that the Map-Reply is in
      response to a Locator reachability probe Map-Request.  The 'Nonce'
      field MUST contain a copy of the nonce value from the original
      Map-Request.  See RLOC-probing [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for more
      details.

   E: This bit indicates that the ETR that sends this Map-Reply message
      is advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce Locator
      reachability algorithm.  See Echo-Nonce [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
      for more details.

   S: This is the Security bit.  When set to 1, the following
      authentication information will be appended to the end of the Map-
      Reply.  The details of signing a Map-Reply message can be found in
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].






Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    AD Type    |       Authentication Data Content . . .       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Reserved:  This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be
      ignored on receipt.

   Record Count:  This is the number of records in this reply message.
      A record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled
      'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record
      Count.

   Nonce:  This is a 24-bit value set in a Data-Probe packet, or a
      64-bit value from the Map-Request is echoed in this 'Nonce' field
      of the Map-Reply.  When a 24-bit value is supplied, it resides in
      the low-order 64 bits of the 'Nonce' field.

   Record TTL:  This is the time in minutes the recipient of the Map-
      Reply will store the mapping.  If the TTL is 0, the entry SHOULD
      be removed from the cache immediately.  If the value is
      0xffffffff, the recipient can decide locally how long to store the
      mapping.

   Locator Count:  This is the number of Locator entries.  A Locator
      entry comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'.  The Locator count
      can be 0, indicating that there are no Locators for the EID-
      Prefix.

   EID mask-len:  This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix.

   ACT:  This 3-bit field describes Negative Map-Reply actions.  In any
      other message type, these bits are set to 0 and ignored on
      receipt.  These bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field
      is set to 0.  The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply
      messages.  The actions defined are used by an ITR or PITR when a
      destination EID matches a negative Map-Cache entry.  Unassigned
      values should cause a Map-Cache entry to be created, and when
      packets match this negative cache entry, they will be dropped.
      The current assigned values are:



      (0) No-Action:  The map-cache is kept alive, and no packet
          encapsulation occurs.





Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


      (1) Natively-Forward:  The packet is not encapsulated or dropped
          but natively forwarded.

      (2) Send-Map-Request:  The packet invokes sending a Map-Request.

      (3) Drop/No-Reason:  A packet that matches this map-cache entry is
          dropped.  An ICMP Destination Unreachable message SHOULD be
          sent.

      (4) Drop/Policy-Denied:  A packet that matches this map-cache
          entry is dropped.  The reason for the Drop action is that a
          Map-Request for the target-EID is being policy denied by
          either an xTR or the mapping system.

      (5) Drop/Authentication-Failure:  A packet that matches this map-
          cache entry is dropped.  The reason for the Drop action is
          that a Map-Request for the target-EID fails an authentication
          verification-check by either an xTR or the mapping system.

   A: The Authoritative bit, when sent, is always set to 1 by an ETR.
      When a Map-Server is proxy Map-Replying for a LISP site, the
      Authoritative bit is set to 0.  This indicates to requesting ITRs
      that the Map-Reply was not originated by a LISP node managed at
      the site that owns the EID-Prefix.

   Map-Version Number:  When this 12-bit value is non-zero, the Map-
      Reply sender is informing the ITR what the version number is for
      the EID record contained in the Map-Reply.  The ETR can allocate
      this number internally but MUST coordinate this value with other
      ETRs for the site.  When this value is 0, there is no versioning
      information conveyed.  The Map-Version Number can be included in
      Map-Request and Map-Register messages.  See Map-Versioning
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for more details.

   EID-Prefix-AFI:  Address family of the EID-Prefix according to [AFI]
      and [RFC8060].

   EID-Prefix:  This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and
      16 octets for an IPv6 address family.

   Priority:  Each RLOC is assigned a unicast Priority.  Lower values
      are more preferable.  When multiple RLOCs have the same Priority,
      they MAY be used in a load-split fashion.  A value of 255 means
      the RLOC MUST NOT be used for unicast forwarding.

   Weight:  When priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the Weight
      indicates how to balance unicast traffic between them.  Weight is
      encoded as a relative weight of total unicast packets that match



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


      the mapping entry.  For example, if there are 4 Locators in a
      Locator-Set, where the Weights assigned are 30, 20, 20, and 10,
      the first Locator will get 37.5% of the traffic, the 2nd and 3rd
      Locators will get 25% of the traffic, and the 4th Locator will get
      12.5% of the traffic.  If all Weights for a Locator-Set are equal,
      the receiver of the Map-Reply will decide how to load-split the
      traffic.  See RLOC-hashing [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for a
      suggested hash algorithm to distribute the load across Locators
      with the same Priority and equal Weight values.

   M Priority:  Each RLOC is assigned a multicast Priority used by an
      ETR in a receiver multicast site to select an ITR in a source
      multicast site for building multicast distribution trees.  A value
      of 255 means the RLOC MUST NOT be used for joining a multicast
      distribution tree.  For more details, see [RFC6831].

   M Weight:  When priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the
      Weight indicates how to balance building multicast distribution
      trees across multiple ITRs.  The Weight is encoded as a relative
      weight (similar to the unicast Weights) of the total number of
      trees built to the source site identified by the EID-Prefix.  If
      all Weights for a Locator-Set are equal, the receiver of the Map-
      Reply will decide how to distribute multicast state across ITRs.
      For more details, see [RFC6831].

   Unused Flags:  These are set to 0 when sending and ignored on
      receipt.

   L: When this bit is set, the Locator is flagged as a local Locator to
      the ETR that is sending the Map-Reply.  When a Map-Server is doing
      proxy Map-Replying for a LISP site, the L-bit is set to 0 for all
      Locators in this Locator-Set.

   p: When this bit is set, an ETR informs the RLOC-Probing ITR that the
      locator address for which this bit is set is the one being RLOC-
      probed and MAY be different from the source address of the Map-
      Reply.  An ITR that RLOC-probes a particular Locator MUST use this
      Locator for retrieving the data structure used to store the fact
      that the Locator is reachable.  The p-bit is set for a single
      Locator in the same Locator-Set. If an implementation sets more
      than one p-bit erroneously, the receiver of the Map-Reply MUST
      select the first Locator.  The p-bit MUST NOT be set for Locator-
      Set records sent in Map-Request and Map-Register messages.

   R: This is set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the
      Locator in the Locator data record.  This receiver may find this
      useful to know if the Locator is up but not necessarily reachable




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


      from the receiver's point of view.  See also EID-Reachability
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for another way the R-bit may be used.

   Locator:  This is an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the 'Loc-
      AFI' field) assigned to an ETR.  Note that the destination RLOC
      address MAY be an anycast address.  A source RLOC can be an
      anycast address as well.  The source or destination RLOC MUST NOT
      be the broadcast address (255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast
      address known to the router) and MUST NOT be a link-local
      multicast address.  The source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast
      address.  The destination RLOC SHOULD be a multicast address if it
      is being mapped from a multicast destination EID.

4.5.  EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message

   A Map-Reply returns an EID-Prefix with a prefix length that is less
   than or equal to the EID being requested.  The EID being requested is
   either from the destination field of an IP header of a Data-Probe or
   the EID record of a Map-Request.  The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are
   globally routable IP addresses of all ETRs for the LISP site.  Each
   RLOC conveys status reachability but does not convey path
   reachability from a requester's perspective.  Separate testing of
   path reachability is required.  See RLOC-reachability
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for details.

   Note that a Map-Reply may contain different EID-Prefix granularity
   (prefix + length) than the Map-Request that triggers it.  This might
   occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned by an
   earlier Map-Reply.  In such a case, the requester updates its cache
   with the new prefix information and granularity.  For example, a
   requester with two cached EID-Prefixes that are covered by a Map-
   Reply containing one less-specific prefix replaces the entry with the
   less-specific EID-Prefix.  Note that the reverse, replacement of one
   less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can also
   occur, not by removing the less-specific prefix but rather by adding
   the more-specific prefixes that, during a lookup, will override the
   less-specific prefix.

   When an ETR is configured with overlapping EID-Prefixes, a Map-
   Request with an EID that best matches any EID-Prefix MUST be returned
   in a single Map-Reply message.  For instance, if an ETR had database
   mapping entries for EID-Prefixes:

     10.0.0.0/8
     10.1.0.0/16
     10.1.1.0/24
     10.1.2.0/24




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   A Map-Request for EID 10.1.1.1 would cause a Map-Reply with a record
   count of 1 to be returned with a mapping record EID-Prefix of
   10.1.1.0/24.

   A Map-Request for EID 10.1.5.5 would cause a Map-Reply with a record
   count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for EID-Prefixes
   10.1.0.0/16, 10.1.1.0/24, and 10.1.2.0/24.

   Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but
   only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above
   10.0.0.0/8 was not returned for requesting EID 10.1.5.5) for the
   matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID.  When more than one EID-
   Prefix is returned, all SHOULD use the same Time to Live value so
   they can all time out at the same time.  When a more-specific EID-
   Prefix is received later, its Time to Live value in the Map-Reply
   record can be stored even when other less-specific entries exist.
   When a less-specific EID-Prefix is received later, its map-cache
   expiration time SHOULD be set to the minimum expiration time of any
   more-specific EID-Prefix in the map-cache.  This is done so the
   integrity of the EID-Prefix set is wholly maintained and so no more-
   specific entries are removed from the map-cache while keeping less-
   specific entries.

   Map-Replies SHOULD be sent for an EID-Prefix no more often than once
   per second to the same requesting router.  For scalability, it is
   expected that aggregation of EID addresses into EID-Prefixes will
   allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for the EID addresses in the
   prefix range, thereby reducing the number of Map-Request messages.

   Map-Reply records can have an empty Locator-Set.  A Negative Map-
   Reply is a Map-Reply with an empty Locator-Set.  Negative Map-Replies
   convey special actions by the sender to the ITR or PITR that have
   solicited the Map-Reply.  There are two primary applications for
   Negative Map-Replies.  The first is for a Map-Resolver to instruct an
   ITR or PITR when a destination is for a LISP site versus a non-LISP
   site, and the other is to source quench Map-Requests that are sent
   for non-allocated EIDs.

   For each Map-Reply record, the list of Locators in a Locator-Set MUST
   appear in the same order for each ETR that originates a Map-Reply
   message.  The Locator-Set MUST be sorted in order of ascending IP
   address where an IPv4 locator address is considered numerically 'less
   than' an IPv6 locator address.

   When sending a Map-Reply message, the destination address is copied
   from one of the 'ITR-RLOC' fields from the Map-Request.  The ETR can
   choose a locator address from one of the address families it
   supports.  For Data-Probes, the destination address of the Map-Reply



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   is copied from the source address of the Data-Probe message that is
   invoking the reply.  The source address of the Map-Reply is one of
   the local IP addresses chosen to allow Unicast Reverse Path
   Forwarding (uRPF) checks to succeed in the upstream service provider.
   The destination port of a Map-Reply message is copied from the source
   port of the Map-Request or Data-Probe, and the source port of the
   Map-Reply message is set to the well-known UDP port 4342.












































Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.6.  Map-Register Message Format

   This section specifies the encoding format for the Map-Register
   message.  The message is sent in UDP with a destination UDP port of
   4342 and a randomly selected UDP source port number.

   The Map-Register message format is:

        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=3 |P|S|I|        Reserved       |E|T|a|m|M| Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Key ID     | Algorithm ID  |  Authentication Data Length   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                     Authentication Data                       ~
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                          Record TTL                           |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
   e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   c   | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   |        EID-Prefix-AFI         |
   o   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   r   |                          EID-Prefix                           |
   d   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
   | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |
   | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  \|                             Locator                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Packet field descriptions:

   Type:   3 (Map-Register)

   P: This is the proxy Map-Reply bit.  When set to 1, an ETR sends a
      Map-Register message requesting the Map-Server to proxy a Map-
      Reply.  The Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map-Replies on
      behalf of the ETR.

   S: This is the security-capable bit.  When set, the procedures from
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] are supported.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   I: This is the xTR-ID bit.  When this bit is set, what is appended to
      the Map-Register is a 128-bit xTR router-ID and then a 64-bit
      site-ID.  See LISP NAT-Traversal procedures in
      [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] for details.

   Reserved:  This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be
      ignored on receipt.

   E: This is the Map-Register EID-notify bit.  This is used by a First-
      Hop-Router (FHR) which discovers a dynamic-EID.  This EID-notify
      based Map-Register is sent by the FHR to the same site xTR that
      propogates the Map-Register to the mapping system.  The site xTR
      keeps state to later Map-Notify the FHR after the EID has moves
      away.  See [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] for a detailed use-case.

   T: This is the use-TTL for timeout bit.  When set to 1, the xTR wants
      the Map-Server to time out registrations based on the value in the
      "Record TTL" field of this message.

   a: This is the merge-request bit.  When set to 1, the xTR requests to
      merge RLOC-records from different xTRs registering the same EID-
      record.  See signal-free multicast
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] for one use case example.

   m: This is the mobile-node bit.  When set to 1, the registering xTR
      supports the procedures in [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn].

   M: This is the want-map-notify bit.  When set to 1, an ETR is
      requesting a Map-Notify message to be returned in response to
      sending a Map-Register message.  The Map-Notify message sent by a
      Map-Server is used to acknowledge receipt of a Map-Register
      message.

   Record Count:  This is the number of records in this Map-Register
      message.  A record is comprised of that portion of the packet
      labeled 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to
      Record Count.

   Nonce:  This 8-octet 'Nonce' field is set to 0 in Map-Register
      messages.  Since the Map-Register message is authenticated, the
      'Nonce' field is not currently used for any security function but
      may be in the future as part of an anti-replay solution.

   Key ID:  This is a configured key-id value that corresponds to a
      shared-secret password that is used to authenticate the sender.
      Multiple shared-secrets can be used to roll over keys in a non-
      disruptive way.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   Algorithm ID:  This is the configured Message Authentication Code
      (MAC) algorithm value used for the authentication function.  See
      Algorithm ID Numbers in the Section 7.3 for codepoint assignments.

   Authentication Data Length:  This is the length in octets of the
      'Authentication Data' field that follows this field.  The length
      of the 'Authentication Data' field is dependent on the MAC
      algorithm used.  The length field allows a device that doesn't
      know the MAC algorithm to correctly parse the packet.

   Authentication Data:  This is the message digest used from the output
      of the MAC algorithm.  The entire Map-Register payload is
      authenticated with this field preset to 0.  After the MAC is
      computed, it is placed in this field.  Implementations of this
      specification MUST include support for HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2404],
      and support for HMAC-SHA-256-128 [RFC4868] is RECOMMENDED.

   The definition of the rest of the Map-Register can be found in
   Section 4.4.
































Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.7.  Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format

   This section specifies the encoding format for the Map-Notify and
   Map-Notify-Ack messages.  The messages are sent inside a UDP packet
   with source and destination UDP ports equal to 4342.

   The Map-Notify and Map-Notify-Ack message formats are:

        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=4/5|             Reserved                 | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Key ID     | Algorithm ID  |  Authentication Data Length   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                     Authentication Data                       ~
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                          Record TTL                           |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Locator Count | EID mask-len  | ACT |A|      Reserved         |
   e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   c   | Rsvd  |  Map-Version Number   |         EID-Prefix-AFI        |
   o   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   r   |                          EID-Prefix                           |
   d   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
   | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | o |        Unused Flags     |L|p|R|           Loc-AFI             |
   | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  \|                             Locator                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Packet field descriptions:

   Type:   4/5 (Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack)

   The Map-Notify message has the same contents as a Map-Register
   message.  See the Map-Register section for field descriptions.

   The Map-Notify-Ack message has the same contents as a Map-Notify
   message.  It is used to acknowledge the receipt of a Map-Notify and
   for the sender to stop retransmitting a Map-Notify with the same
   nonce.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


4.8.  Encapsulated Control Message Format

   An Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) is used to encapsulate control
   packets sent between xTRs and the mapping database system.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |                       IPv4 or IPv6 Header                     |
   OH  |                      (uses RLOC addresses)                    |
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = 4342        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    LH |Type=8 |S|D|E|M|            Reserved                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |                       IPv4 or IPv6 Header                     |
   IH  |                  (uses RLOC or EID addresses)                 |
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = yyyy        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   LCM |                      LISP Control Message                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Packet header descriptions:

   OH:   The outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, which uses RLOC addresses in the
         source and destination header address fields.

   UDP:  The outer UDP header with destination port 4342.  The source
         port is randomly allocated.  The checksum field MUST be non-
         zero.

   LH:   Type 8 is defined to be a "LISP Encapsulated Control Message",
         and what follows is either an IPv4 or IPv6 header as encoded by
         the first 4 bits after the 'Reserved' field.

   Type:   8 (Encapsulated Control Message (ECM))

   S:    This is the Security bit.  When set to 1, the procedures from
         [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] are followed.





Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   D:    This is the DDT-bit.  When set to 1, the sender is requesting a
         Map-Referral message to be returned.  The details of this
         procedure are described in [RFC8111].

   E:    This is the to-ETR bit.  When set to 1, the Map-Server's
         intention is to forward the ECM to an authoritative ETR.

   M:    This is the to-MS bit.  When set to 1, a Map-Request is being
         sent to a co-located Map-Resolver and Map-Server where the
         message can be processed directly by the Map-Server versus the
         Map-Resolver using the LISP-DDT procedures in [RFC8111].

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    AD Type    |       Authentication Data Content . . .       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   IH:   The inner IPv4 or IPv6 header, which can use either RLOC or EID
         addresses in the header address fields.  When a Map-Request is
         encapsulated in this packet format, the destination address in
         this header is an EID.

   UDP:  The inner UDP header, where the port assignments depend on the
         control packet being encapsulated.  When the control packet is
         a Map-Request or Map-Register, the source port is selected by
         the ITR/PITR and the destination port is 4342.  When the
         control packet is a Map-Reply, the source port is 4342 and the
         destination port is assigned from the source port of the
         invoking Map-Request.  Port number 4341 MUST NOT be assigned to
         either port.  The checksum field MUST be non-zero.

   LCM:  The format is one of the control message formats described in
         this section.  At this time, only Map-Request messages are
         allowed to be encapsulated.  In the future, PIM Join/Prune
         messages [RFC6831] might be allowed.  Encapsulating other types
         of LISP control messages is for further study.  When Map-
         Requests are sent for RLOC-Probing purposes (i.e., the probe-
         bit is set), they MUST NOT be sent inside Encapsulated Control
         Messages.











Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


5.  Interactions with Other LISP Components

5.1.  ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution

   An ITR is configured with one or more Map-Resolver addresses.  These
   addresses are "Locators" (or RLOCs) and must be routable on the
   underlying core network; they must not need to be resolved through
   LISP EID-to-RLOC mapping, as that would introduce a circular
   dependency.  When using a Map-Resolver, an ITR does not need to
   connect to any other database mapping system.  In particular, the ITR
   need not connect to the LISP+ALT infrastructure or implement the BGP
   and GRE protocols that it uses.

   An ITR sends an Encapsulated Map-Request to a configured Map-Resolver
   when it needs an EID-to-RLOC mapping that is not found in its local
   map-cache.  Using the Map-Resolver greatly reduces both the
   complexity of the ITR implementation and the costs associated with
   its operation.

   In response to an Encapsulated Map-Request, the ITR can expect one of
   the following:

   o  An immediate Negative Map-Reply (with action code of "Natively-
      Forward", 15-minute Time to Live (TTL)) from the Map-Resolver if
      the Map-Resolver can determine that the requested EID does not
      exist.  The ITR saves the EID-Prefix returned in the Map-Reply in
      its cache, marks it as non-LISP-capable, and knows not to attempt
      LISP encapsulation for destinations matching it.

   o  A Negative Map-Reply, with action code of "Natively-Forward", from
      a Map-Server that is authoritative for an EID-Prefix that matches
      the requested EID but that does not have an actively registered,
      more-specific ID-prefix.  In this case, the requested EID is said
      to match a "hole" in the authoritative EID-Prefix.  If the
      requested EID matches a more-specific EID-Prefix that has been
      delegated by the Map-Server but for which no ETRs are currently
      registered, a 1-minute TTL is returned.  If the requested EID
      matches a non-delegated part of the authoritative EID-Prefix, then
      it is not a LISP EID and a 15-minute TTL is returned.  See
      Section 5.2 for discussion of aggregate EID-Prefixes and details
      of Map-Server EID-Prefix matching.

   o  A LISP Map-Reply from the ETR that owns the EID-to-RLOC mapping or
      possibly from a Map-Server answering on behalf of the ETR.  See
      Section 5.4 for more details on Map-Resolver message processing.

   Note that an ITR may be configured to both use a Map-Resolver and to
   participate in a LISP+ALT logical network.  In such a situation, the



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   ITR should send Map-Requests through the ALT network for any EID-
   Prefix learned via ALT BGP.  Such a configuration is expected to be
   very rare, since there is little benefit to using a Map-Resolver if
   an ITR is already using LISP+ALT.  There would be, for example, no
   need for such an ITR to send a Map-Request to a possibly non-existent
   EID (and rely on Negative Map-Replies) if it can consult the ALT
   database to verify that an EID-Prefix is present before sending that
   Map-Request.

5.2.  EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration

   An ETR publishes its EID-Prefixes on a Map-Server by sending LISP
   Map-Register messages.  A Map-Register message includes
   authentication data, so prior to sending a Map-Register message, the
   ETR and Map-Server must be configured with a shared secret or other
   relevant authentication information.  A Map-Server's configuration
   must also include a list of the EID-Prefixes for which each ETR is
   authoritative.  Upon receipt of a Map-Register from an ETR, a Map-
   Server accepts only EID-Prefixes that are configured for that ETR.
   Failure to implement such a check would leave the mapping system
   vulnerable to trivial EID-Prefix hijacking attacks.  As developers
   and operators gain experience with the mapping system, additional,
   stronger security measures may be added to the registration process.

   In addition to the set of EID-Prefixes defined for each ETR that may
   register, a Map-Server is typically also configured with one or more
   aggregate prefixes that define the part of the EID numbering space
   assigned to it.  When LISP+ALT is the database in use, aggregate EID-
   Prefixes are implemented as discard routes and advertised into ALT
   BGP.  The existence of aggregate EID-Prefixes in a Map-Server's
   database means that it may receive Map Requests for EID-Prefixes that
   match an aggregate but do not match a registered prefix; Section 5.3
   describes how this is handled.

   Map-Register messages are sent periodically from an ETR to a Map-
   Server with a suggested interval between messages of one minute.  A
   Map-Server should time out and remove an ETR's registration if it has
   not received a valid Map-Register message within the past
   three minutes.  When first contacting a Map-Server after restart or
   changes to its EID-to-RLOC database mappings, an ETR may initially
   send Map-Register messages at an increased frequency, up to one every
   20 seconds.  This "quick registration" period is limited to
   five minutes in duration.

   An ETR may request that a Map-Server explicitly acknowledge receipt
   and processing of a Map-Register message by setting the "want-map-
   notify" (M-bit) flag.  A Map-Server that receives a Map-Register with
   this flag set will respond with a Map-Notify message.  Typical use of



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   this flag by an ETR would be to set it for Map-Register messages sent
   during the initial "quick registration" with a Map-Server but then
   set it only occasionally during steady-state maintenance of its
   association with that Map-Server.  Note that the Map-Notify message
   is sent to UDP destination port 4342, not to the source port
   specified in the original Map-Register message.

   Note that a one-minute minimum registration interval during
   maintenance of an ETR-Map-Server association places a lower bound on
   how quickly and how frequently a mapping database entry can be
   updated.  This may have implications for what sorts of mobility can
   be supported directly by the mapping system; shorter registration
   intervals or other mechanisms might be needed to support faster
   mobility in some cases.  For a discussion on one way that faster
   mobility may be implemented for individual devices, please see
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn].

   An ETR may also request, by setting the "proxy Map-Reply" flag
   (P-bit) in the Map-Register message, that a Map-Server answer Map-
   Requests instead of forwarding them to the ETR.  See
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for details on how the Map-Server sets
   certain flags (such as those indicating whether the message is
   authoritative and how returned Locators should be treated) when
   sending a Map-Reply on behalf of an ETR.  When an ETR requests proxy
   reply service, it should include all RLOCs for all ETRs for the EID-
   Prefix being registered, along with the routable flag ("R-bit")
   setting for each RLOC.  The Map-Server includes all of this
   information in Map-Reply messages that it sends on behalf of the ETR.
   This differs from a non-proxy registration, since the latter need
   only provide one or more RLOCs for a Map-Server to use for forwarding
   Map-Requests; the registration information is not used in Map-
   Replies, so it being incomplete is not incorrect.

   An ETR that uses a Map-Server to publish its EID-to-RLOC mappings
   does not need to participate further in the mapping database
   protocol(s).  When using a LISP+ALT mapping database, for example,
   this means that the ETR does not need to implement GRE or BGP, which
   greatly simplifies its configuration and reduces its cost of
   operation.

   Note that use of a Map-Server does not preclude an ETR from also
   connecting to the mapping database (i.e., it could also connect to
   the LISP+ALT network), but doing so doesn't seem particularly useful,
   as the whole purpose of using a Map-Server is to avoid the complexity
   of the mapping database protocols.






Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


5.3.  Map-Server Processing

   Once a Map-Server has EID-Prefixes registered by its client ETRs, it
   can accept and process Map-Requests for them.

   In response to a Map-Request (received over the ALT if LISP+ALT is in
   use), the Map-Server first checks to see if the destination EID
   matches a configured EID-Prefix.  If there is no match, the Map-
   Server returns a Negative Map-Reply with action code "Natively-
   Forward" and a 15-minute TTL.  This may occur if a Map Request is
   received for a configured aggregate EID-Prefix for which no more-
   specific EID-Prefix exists; it indicates the presence of a non-LISP
   "hole" in the aggregate EID-Prefix.

   Next, the Map-Server checks to see if any ETRs have registered the
   matching EID-Prefix.  If none are found, then the Map-Server returns
   a Negative Map-Reply with action code "Natively-Forward" and a
   1-minute TTL.

   If any of the registered ETRs for the EID-Prefix have requested proxy
   reply service, then the Map-Server answers the request instead of
   forwarding it.  It returns a Map-Reply with the EID-Prefix, RLOCs,
   and other information learned through the registration process.

   If none of the ETRs have requested proxy reply service, then the Map-
   Server re-encapsulates and forwards the resulting Encapsulated Map-
   Request to one of the registered ETRs.  It does not otherwise alter
   the Map-Request, so any Map-Reply sent by the ETR is returned to the
   RLOC in the Map-Request, not to the Map-Server.  Unless also acting
   as a Map-Resolver, a Map-Server should never receive Map-Replies; any
   such messages should be discarded without response, perhaps
   accompanied by the logging of a diagnostic message if the rate of
   Map-Replies is suggestive of malicious traffic.

5.4.  Map-Resolver Processing

   Upon receipt of an Encapsulated Map-Request, a Map-Resolver
   decapsulates the enclosed message and then searches for the requested
   EID in its local database of mapping entries (statically configured
   or learned from associated ETRs if the Map-Resolver is also a Map-
   Server offering proxy reply service).  If it finds a matching entry,
   it returns a LISP Map-Reply with the known mapping.

   If the Map-Resolver does not have the mapping entry and if it can
   determine that the EID is not in the mapping database (for example,
   if LISP+ALT is used, the Map-Resolver will have an ALT forwarding
   table that covers the full EID space), it immediately returns a
   negative LISP Map-Reply, with action code "Natively-Forward" and a



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   15-minute TTL.  To minimize the number of negative cache entries
   needed by an ITR, the Map-Resolver should return the least-specific
   prefix that both matches the original query and does not match any
   EID-Prefix known to exist in the LISP-capable infrastructure.

   If the Map-Resolver does not have sufficient information to know
   whether the EID exists, it needs to forward the Map-Request to
   another device that has more information about the EID being
   requested.  To do this, it forwards the unencapsulated Map-Request,
   with the original ITR RLOC as the source, to the mapping database
   system.  Using LISP+ALT, the Map-Resolver is connected to the ALT
   network and sends the Map-Request to the next ALT hop learned from
   its ALT BGP neighbors.  The Map-Resolver does not send any response
   to the ITR; since the source RLOC is that of the ITR, the ETR or Map-
   Server that receives the Map-Request over the ALT and responds will
   do so directly to the ITR.

5.4.1.  Anycast Map-Resolver Operation

   A Map-Resolver can be set up to use "anycast", where the same address
   is assigned to multiple Map-Resolvers and is propagated through IGP
   routing, to facilitate the use of a topologically close Map-Resolver
   by each ITR.

   Note that Map-Server associations with ETRs should not use anycast
   addresses, as registrations need to be established between an ETR and
   a specific set of Map-Servers, each identified by a specific
   registration association.

6.  Security Considerations

   The 2-way LISP header nonce exchange documented in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] can be used to avoid ITR spoofing attacks.

   To publish an authoritative EID-to-RLOC mapping with a Map-Server, an
   ETR includes authentication data that is a hash of the message using
   a pair-wise shared key.  An implementation must support use of HMAC-
   SHA-1-96 [RFC2104] and should support use of HMAC-SHA-256-128
   [RFC6234] (SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits).

   As noted in Section 5.2, a Map-Server should verify that all EID-
   Prefixes registered by an ETR match the configuration stored on the
   Map-Server.

   The currently defined authentication mechanism for Map-Register
   messages does not provide protection against "replay" attacks by a
   "man-in-the-middle".  Additional work is needed in this area.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] defines a proposed mechanism for providing origin
   authentication, integrity, anti-replay protection, and prevention of
   man-in-the-middle and "overclaiming" attacks on the Map-Request/Map-
   Reply exchange.  Work is ongoing on this and other proposals for
   resolving these open security issues.

   While beyond the scope of securing an individual Map-Server or Map-
   Resolver, it should be noted that a BGP-based LISP+ALT network (if
   ALT is used as the mapping database infrastructure) can take
   advantage of standards work on adding security to BGP.

   A complete LISP threat analysis has been published in [RFC7835].
   Please refer to it for more security related details.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
   LISP control-plane specification, in accordance with BCP 26
   [RFC5226].

   There are three namespaces (listed in the sub-sections below) in LISP
   that have been registered.

   o  LISP IANA registry allocations should not be made for purposes
      unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols.

   o  The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in
      BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental
      Use", and "First Come First Served".

7.1.  LISP Packet Type Codes

   It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Packet
   Type definitions and that it refers to this document as well as
   [RFC8113] as references.

   Based on deployment experience of [RFC6830], the Map-Notify-Ack
   message, message type 5, was added to this document.  This document
   requests IANA to add it to the LISP Packet Type Registry.

7.2.  LISP ACT and Flag Fields

   New ACT values can be allocated through IETF review or IESG approval.
   Four values have already been allocated by [RFC6830].  This
   specification changes the name of ACT type 3 value from "Drop" to
   "Drop/No-Reason" as well as adding two new ACT values, the "Drop/
   Policy-Denied" (type 4) and "Drop/Authentication-Failure" (type 5).



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   In addition, LISP has a number of flag fields and reserved fields,
   such as the LISP header flags field [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  New
   bits for flags in these fields can be implemented after IETF review
   or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA.

7.3.  LISP Address Type Codes

   LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] is an 8-bit field that
   defines LISP-specific encodings for AFI value 16387.  LCAF encodings
   are used for specific use-cases where different address types for
   EID-records and RLOC-records are required.

   The IANA registry "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" is
   used for LCAF types, the registry for LCAF types use the
   Specification Required policy [RFC5226].  Initial values for the
   registry as well as further information can be found in [RFC8060].

   Therefore, there is no longer a need for the "LISP Address Type
   Codes" registry requested by [RFC6830].  This document requests to
   remove it.

7.4.  LISP Algorithm ID Numbers

   In [RFC6830], a request for a "LISP Key ID Numbers" registry was
   submitted.  This document renames the registry to "LISP Algorithm ID
   Numbers" and requests the IANA to make the name change.

   The following Algorithm ID values are defined by this specification
   as used in any packet type that references a 'Algorithm ID' field:

       Name                 Number          Defined in
       -----------------------------------------------
       None                 0               n/a
       HMAC-SHA-1-96        1               [RFC2404]
       HMAC-SHA-256-128     2               [RFC4868]

   Number values are in the range of 0 to 255.  The allocation of values
   is on a first come first served basis.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.





Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.

   [RFC2404]  Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
              ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November
              1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4107]  Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
              Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, DOI 10.17487/RFC4107,
              June 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4107>.

   [RFC4868]  Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
              384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
              January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.




Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   [RFC6837]  Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
              Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.

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

   [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>.

   [RFC8113]  Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry
              for Packet Type Allocations", RFC 8113,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8113, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8113>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [AFI]      IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
              NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
              numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007.

   [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
              Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
              F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
              lisp-nat-traversal-13 (work in progress), September 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
              Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
              F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
              Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-00
              (work in progress), May 2017.



Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   [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-mn]
              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 (work in progress),
              April 2017.

   [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-05 (work in progress),
              August 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13
              (work in progress), September 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
              draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06 (work in
              progress), August 2017.

   [I-D.lewis-lisp-gpe]
              Lewis, D., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L., Maino, F., Quinn, P.,
              Smith, M., and N. Yadav, "LISP Generic Protocol
              Extension", draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-02 (work in progress),
              July 2014.

   [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe]
              Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F.,
              Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg,
              P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN",
              draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04 (work in progress), February
              2015.

   [I-D.rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub]
              Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F.,
              Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., and D. Farinacci,
              "Publish-Subscribe mechanism for LISP", draft-
              rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub-00 (work in progress), August
              2017.





Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   [LISP-CONS]
              Brim, S., Chiappa, N., Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Lewis,
              D., and D. Meyer, "LISP-CONS: A Content distribution
              Overlay Network Service for LISP", Work in Progress, April
              2008.














































Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Greg Schudel, Darrel Lewis, John
   Zwiebel, Andrew Partan, Dave Meyer, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver,
   Fabio Maino, and members of the lisp@ietf.org mailing list for their
   feedback and helpful suggestions.

   Special thanks are due to Noel Chiappa for his extensive work on
   caching with LISP-CONS, some of which may be used by Map-Resolvers.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06

   o  Posted October 2017.

   o  Spec the I-bit to include the xTR-ID in a Map-Request message to
      be consistent with the Map-Register message and to anticipate the
      introduction of pubsub functionality to allow Map-Requests to
      subscribe to RLOC-set changes.

   o  Updated references for individual submissions that became working
      group documents.

   o  Updated references for working group documents that became RFCs.

B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05

   o  Posted May 2017.

   o  Update IANA Considerations section based on new requests from this
      document and changes from what was requested in [RFC6830].

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04

   o  Posted May 2017.

   o  Clarify how the Key-ID field is used in Map-Register and Map-
      Notify messages.  Break the 16-bit field into a 8-bit Key-ID field
      and a 8-bit Algorithm-ID field.

   o  Move the control-plane codepoints from the IANA Considerations
      section of RFC6830bis to the IANA Considerations section of this
      document.





Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   o  In the "LISP Control Packet Type Allocations" section, indicate
      how message Types are IANA allocated and how experimental RFC8113
      sub-types should be requested.

B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03

   o  Posted April 2017.

   o  Add types 9-14 and specify they are not assigned.

   o  Add the "LISP Shared Extension Message" type and point to RFC8113.

B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02

   o  Posted April 2017.

   o  Clarify that the LISP control-plane document defines how the LISP
      data-plane uses Map-Requests with either the SMR-bit set or the
      P-bit set supporting mapping updates and RLOC-probing.  Indicating
      that other data-planes can use the same mechanisms or their own
      defined mechanisms to achieve the same functionality.

B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01

   o  Posted March 2017.

   o  Include references to new RFCs published.

   o  Remove references to self.

   o  Change references from RFC6830 to RFC6830bis.

   o  Add two new action/reasons to a Map-Reply has posted to the LISP
      WG mailing list.

   o  In intro section, add refernece to I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction.

   o  Removed Open Issues section and references to "experimental".

B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00

   o  Posted December 2016.

   o  Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
      -rfc6833-00 individual submission.  No other changes made.






Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


B.8.  Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00

   o  Posted November 2016.

   o  This is the initial draft to turn RFC 6833 into RFC 6833bis.

   o  The document name has changed from the "Locator/ID Separation
      Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface" to the "Locator/ID
      Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane".

   o  The fundamental change was to move the control-plane messages from
      RFC 6830 to this document in an effort so any IETF developed or
      industry created data-plane could use the LISP mapping system and
      control-plane.

   o  Update control-plane messages to incorporate what has been
      implemented in products during the early phase of LISP development
      but wasn't able to make it into RFC6830 and RFC6833 to make the
      Experimental RFC deadline.

   o  Indicate there may be nodes in the mapping system that are not MRs
      or MSs, that is a ALT-node or a DDT-node.

   o  Include LISP-DDT in Map-Resolver section and explain how they
      maintain a referral-cache.

   o  Removed open issue about additional state in Map-Servers.  With
      [RFC8111], Map-Servers have the same registration state and can
      give Map-Resolvers complete information in ms-ack Map-Referral
      messages.

   o  Make reference to the LISP Threats Analysis RFC [RFC7835].

Authors' Addresses

   Vince Fuller
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: vaf@vaf.net


   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: farinacci@gmail.com






Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft             LISP Control-Plane               October 2017


   Albert Cabellos
   UPC/BarcelonaTech
   Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3
   Barcelona, Catalunya
   Spain

   EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu












































Fuller, et al.            Expires April 8, 2018                [Page 42]