Skip to main content

Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
RFC 9306

Document Type RFC - Experimental (October 2022)
Updates RFC 8060
Authors Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Anton Smirnov , Vrushali Ashtaputre , Dino Farinacci
Last updated 2022-10-20
Replaces draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-vendor-lcaf
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
OPSDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2022-04-12
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Luigi Iannone
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-04-20
IESG IESG state RFC 9306 (Experimental)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
RFC 9306


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                A. Rodriguez-Natal
Request for Comments: 9306                                         Cisco
Updates: 8060                                                 V. Ermagan
Category: Experimental                                      Google, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               A. Smirnov
                                                           V. Ashtaputre
                                                                   Cisco
                                                            D. Farinacci
                                                             lispers.net
                                                            October 2022

          Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)

Abstract

   This document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
   Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor-Specific LCAF.  This LCAF
   enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for
   LCAF addresses.  This document updates RFC 8060.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9306.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Requirements Notation
   3.  Unrecognized LCAF Types
   4.  Vendor-Specific LCAF
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  IANA Considerations
   7.  Normative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
   and encoding for different address types that can be used on
   deployments of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300]
   [RFC9301].  However, certain deployments require specific format
   encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use case for
   which they are defined.  This document extends [RFC8060] to introduce
   a Vendor-Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF
   addresses to be used only on particular LISP implementations.  This
   document also updates [RFC8060] to specify the behavior when
   receiving unrecognized LCAF types.

2.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Unrecognized LCAF Types

   [RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle an
   unrecognized LCAF type.  This document updates [RFC8060] to specify
   that any unrecognized LCAF type received in a LISP control plane
   message MUST be ignored.  If all Locators are ignored, this is
   equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as
   described in [RFC9301].  If an EID-Prefix only contains unrecognized
   LCAF types, the LISP control message MUST be dropped and the event
   MUST be logged.  (Here, "EID" refers to Endpoint Identifier.)

4.  Vendor-Specific LCAF

   The Vendor-Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
   Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802] to prevent collisions across
   vendors or organizations using the LCAF.  The format of the Vendor-
   Specific LCAF is provided below.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Type = 255  |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      Rsvd3    |    Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Internal format...                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 1: Vendor-Specific LCAF

   The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor-Specific LCAF
   are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
   in [RFC8060].  The Type field MUST be set 255, the value assigned by
   IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor-Specific LCAF; see Section 6.
   The Length field has to be set accordingly to the length of the
   internal format, plus the OUI, plus the Rsvd3 fields, as for
   [RFC8060].  The fields defined by the Vendor-Specific LCAF are as
   follows:

   Rsvd3:  This 8-bit field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be set
      to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI):  This is a 24-bit field
      that carries an OUI or Company ID (CID) assigned by the IEEE
      Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802
      [IEEE.802]

   Internal format:  This is a variable-length field that is left
      undefined on purpose.  Each vendor or organization can define its
      own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor-Specific LCAF.

   The Vendor-Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where
   different organizations interoperate.  However, there may be cases
   where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which
   they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor-
   Specific LCAF.  In that case, the organizations involved need to
   carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular
   deployment.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an
   organization.

   If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor-Specific
   LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
   message and it SHOULD create a log message.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
   internal use.  It is the responsibility of these organizations to
   properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
   Security considerations from [RFC8060] apply to this document.

6.  IANA Considerations

   Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA has assigned the
   following value for the Vendor-Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical
   Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060]):

           +=======+=====================+=====================+
           | Value | LISP LCAF Type Name |      Reference      |
           +=======+=====================+=====================+
           |  255  |   Vendor Specific   | RFC 9306, Section 4 |
           +-------+---------------------+---------------------+

                  Table 1: Vendor-Specific LCAF Assignment

7.  Normative References

   [IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks: Overview and Architecture",
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, July 2014,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847097>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

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

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9300]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.

   [RFC9301]  Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
              Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, and
   Alvaro Retana for their suggestions and guidance regarding this
   document.

Authors' Addresses

   Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
   Cisco
   Spain
   Email: natal@cisco.com

   Vina Ermagan
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   United States of America
   Email: ermagan@gmail.com

   Anton Smirnov
   Cisco
   Diegem
   Belgium
   Email: asmirnov@cisco.com

   Vrushali Ashtaputre
   Cisco
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: vrushali@cisco.com

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: farinacci@gmail.com