| rfc9302v2.txt | rfc9302.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Iannone | |||
| Request for Comments: 9302 Huawei Technologies France | Request for Comments: 9302 Huawei Technologies France | |||
| Obsoletes: 6834 D. Saucez | Obsoletes: 6834 D. Saucez | |||
| Category: Standards Track INRIA | Category: Standards Track Inria | |||
| ISSN: 2070-1721 O. Bonaventure | ISSN: 2070-1721 O. Bonaventure | |||
| Universite catholique de Louvain | Universite catholique de Louvain | |||
| September 2022 | October 2022 | |||
| Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning | Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) | This document describes the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) | |||
| Map-Versioning mechanism, which provides in-packet information about | Map-Versioning mechanism, which provides in-packet information about | |||
| Endpoint-ID-to-Routing-Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings used to | Endpoint-ID-to-Routing-Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings used to | |||
| encapsulate LISP data packets. This approach is based on associating | encapsulate LISP data packets. This approach is based on associating | |||
| a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappings and transporting such a | a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappings and transporting such a | |||
| skipping to change at line 144 ¶ | skipping to change at line 144 ¶ | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
| "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | |||
| BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | |||
| capitals, as shown here. | capitals, as shown here. | |||
| 3. Definitions of Terms | 3. Definitions of Terms | |||
| This document uses terms already defined in the main LISP | This document uses terms already defined in the main LISP | |||
| specifications ([RFC9300] [RFC9301]). Here, we define the terms that | specifications ([RFC9300] and [RFC9301]). Here, we define the terms | |||
| are specific to the Map-Versioning mechanism. Throughout the whole | that are specific to the Map-Versioning mechanism. Throughout the | |||
| document, big-endian bit ordering is used. | whole document, big-endian bit ordering is used. | |||
| Map-Version number: An unsigned 12-bit integer is assigned to an | Map-Version number: An unsigned 12-bit integer is assigned to an | |||
| EID-to-RLOC mapping, indicating its version number (Section 6). | EID-to-RLOC mapping, indicating its version number (Section 6). | |||
| Null Map-Version: A Map-Version number with a value of 0x000 (zero), | Null Map-Version: A Map-Version number with a value of 0x000 (zero), | |||
| which is used to signal that the Map-Version feature is not used | which is used to signal that the Map-Version feature is not used | |||
| and no Map-Version number is assigned to the EID-to-RLOC mapping | and no Map-Version number is assigned to the EID-to-RLOC mapping | |||
| (Section 6.1). | (Section 6.1). | |||
| Dest Map-Version number: Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to- | Dest Map-Version number: Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to- | |||
| skipping to change at line 540 ¶ | skipping to change at line 540 ¶ | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | |||
| 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | |||
| May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | |||
| [RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. | [RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. | |||
| Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol | Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol | |||
| (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, September 2022, | (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>. | |||
| [RFC9301] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, | [RFC9301] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, | |||
| Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control | Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control | |||
| Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, September 2022, | Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>. | |||
| 11.2. Informative References | 11.2. Informative References | |||
| [RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, | [RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996, | DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>. | |||
| [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, | [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, | |||
| "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol | "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol | |||
| skipping to change at line 572 ¶ | skipping to change at line 572 ¶ | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, | DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6834>. | |||
| [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID | [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID | |||
| Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, | Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. | |||
| [RFC9299] Cabellos, A. and D. Saucez, Ed., "An Architectural | [RFC9299] Cabellos, A. and D. Saucez, Ed., "An Architectural | |||
| Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol | Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol | |||
| (LISP)", RFC 9299, DOI 10.17487/RFC9299, September 2022, | (LISP)", RFC 9299, DOI 10.17487/RFC9299, October 2022, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9299>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9299>. | |||
| Appendix A. Benefits and Case Studies for Map-Versioning | Appendix A. Benefits and Case Studies for Map-Versioning | |||
| In the following sections, we provide more discussion on various | In the following sections, we provide more discussion on various | |||
| aspects and uses of Map-Versioning. Security observations are | aspects and uses of Map-Versioning. Security observations are | |||
| grouped in Section 8. | grouped in Section 8. | |||
| A.1. Map-Versioning and Unidirectional Traffic | A.1. Map-Versioning and Unidirectional Traffic | |||
| skipping to change at line 684 ¶ | skipping to change at line 684 ¶ | |||
| as the Dest Map-Version number, since the receiving Proxy-ETR will | as the Dest Map-Version number, since the receiving Proxy-ETR will | |||
| ignore the field. | ignore the field. | |||
| With this setup, the Proxy-ETR, by looking at the Source Map-Version | With this setup, the Proxy-ETR, by looking at the Source Map-Version | |||
| Number, is able to check whether the mapping of the source EID has | Number, is able to check whether the mapping of the source EID has | |||
| changed. This is useful to perform source RLOC validation. In the | changed. This is useful to perform source RLOC validation. In the | |||
| example above, traffic coming from the LISP domain has to be LISP | example above, traffic coming from the LISP domain has to be LISP | |||
| encapsulated with a source address being an RLOC of the domain. The | encapsulated with a source address being an RLOC of the domain. The | |||
| Proxy-ETR can retrieve the mapping associated to the LISP domain and | Proxy-ETR can retrieve the mapping associated to the LISP domain and | |||
| check if incoming LISP-encapsulated traffic is arriving from a valid | check if incoming LISP-encapsulated traffic is arriving from a valid | |||
| RLOC. A change in the RLOC set that can be used as source addresses | RLOC. A change in the RLOC-Set that can be used as source addresses | |||
| can be signaled via the version number, with the Proxy-ETR able to | can be signaled via the version number, with the Proxy-ETR able to | |||
| request the latest mapping if necessary as described in Section 7.2. | request the latest mapping if necessary as described in Section 7.2. | |||
| A.3. RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw | A.3. RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw | |||
| Map-Versioning can also be used to perform a graceful shutdown or to | Map-Versioning can also be used to perform a graceful shutdown or to | |||
| withdraw a specific RLOC. This is achieved by simply issuing a new | withdraw a specific RLOC. This is achieved by simply issuing a new | |||
| mapping, with an updated Map-Version number where the specific RLOC | mapping, with an updated Map-Version number where the specific RLOC | |||
| to be shut down is withdrawn or announced as unreachable (via the | to be shut down is withdrawn or announced as unreachable (via the | |||
| R-bit in the Map Record; see [RFC9301]) but without actually turning | R-bit in the Map Record; see [RFC9301]) but without actually turning | |||
| skipping to change at line 715 ¶ | skipping to change at line 715 ¶ | |||
| the packet in the flow just as any other routing change could cause | the packet in the flow just as any other routing change could cause | |||
| reordering. | reordering. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Luigi Iannone | Luigi Iannone | |||
| Huawei Technologies France | Huawei Technologies France | |||
| Email: luigi.iannone@huawei.com | Email: luigi.iannone@huawei.com | |||
| Damien Saucez | Damien Saucez | |||
| INRIA | Inria | |||
| 2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93 | ||||
| Sophia Antipolis | ||||
| France | ||||
| Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr | Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr | |||
| Olivier Bonaventure | Olivier Bonaventure | |||
| Universite catholique de Louvain | Universite catholique de Louvain | |||
| Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be | Email: olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be | |||
| End of changes. 8 change blocks. | ||||
| 10 lines changed or deleted | 13 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. | ||||