rfc9302xml2.original.xml   rfc9302.xml 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" version="3" category="std" conse
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ nsus="true" docName="draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14" indexInclude="true" ipr="trust2
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC '' 00902" number="9302" obsoletes="6834" prepTime="2022-10-19T13:59:02" scripts="Co
'https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> mmon,Latin" sortRefs="true" submissionType="IETF" symRefs="true" tocDepth="3" to
<!ENTITY rfc8174 PUBLIC '' cInclude="true" xml:lang="en">
'https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml'> <link href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14" rel="
<!ENTITY rfc7835 PUBLIC '' prev"/>
'https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.7835.xml'> <link href="https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc9302" rel="alternate"/>
<!ENTITY rfc6832 PUBLIC '' <link href="urn:issn:2070-1721" rel="alternate"/>
'https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6832.xml'> <front>
<!ENTITY rfc6834 PUBLIC '' <title abbrev="LISP Map-Versioning">Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Ma
'https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6834.xml'> p-Versioning</title>
<!ENTITY rfc1982 PUBLIC '' <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9302" stream="IETF"/>
'https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.1982.xml'> <author fullname="Luigi Iannone" initials="L." surname="Iannone">
<!ENTITY draft6830bis PUBLIC '' <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei Technologies France</organizat
'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-iet ion>
f-lisp-rfc6830bis-38.xml'> <address>
<!ENTITY draft6833bis PUBLIC '' <email>luigi.iannone@huawei.com</email>
'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-iet </address>
f-lisp-rfc6833bis-31.xml'> </author>
<!ENTITY draftLISP-GPE PUBLIC '' <author fullname="Damien Saucez" initials="D." surname="Saucez">
'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-iet <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Inria</organization>
f-lisp-gpe-19.xml'> <address>
<!ENTITY draftLISP-Intro PUBLIC '' <postal>
'https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml-ids/reference.I-D.draf <street>2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93</street>
t-ietf-lisp-introduction-15.xml'> <city>Sophia Antipolis</city>
]> <country>France</country>
</postal>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14" ipr="trust200902" obsol <email>damien.saucez@inria.fr</email>
etes="6834" consensus="yes"> </address>
</author>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <author fullname="Olivier Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true">Universite catholique de Louvain</org
<?rfc toc="yes" ?> anization>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?> <address>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?> <email>olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be</email>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?> </address>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?> </author>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?> <date month="10" year="2022"/>
<area>rtg</area>
<front> <workgroup>lisp</workgroup>
<abstract pn="section-abstract">
<title abbrev="LISP Map-Versioning">Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map- <t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-1">
Versioning</title> This document describes the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versio
ning mechanism, which provides in-packet information about Endpoint-ID-to-Routin
<author fullname="Luigi Iannone" initials="L." surname="Iannone"> g-Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings used to encapsulate LISP data packets.
<organization>Huawei Technologies France </organization> This approach is based on associating a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappin
<address> gs and transporting such a version number in the LISP-specific header of LISP-en
<email> luigi.iannone@huawei.com </email> capsulated packets.
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Damien Saucez" initials="D." surname="Saucez" >
<organization>INRIA
</organization>
<address>
<email>damien.saucez@inria.fr</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Olivier Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure">
<organization> Universite catholique de Louvain
</organization>
<address>
<email>olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be</email>
</address>
</author>
<date />
<abstract>
<t>
This document describes the LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) Map-Versio
ning mechanism, which provides in-packet information about Endpoint ID to Routin
g Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings used to encapsulate LISP data packets.
This approach is based on associating a version number to EID-to-RLOC mappin
gs and the transport of such a version number in the LISP-specific header of LIS
P-encapsulated packets.
LISP Map-Versioning is particularly useful to inform communicating Ingress T unnel Routers (ITRs) and Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) about modifications of the mappings used to encapsulate packets. LISP Map-Versioning is particularly useful to inform communicating Ingress T unnel Routers (ITRs) and Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) about modifications of the mappings used to encapsulate packets.
The mechanism is optional and transparent to implementations not supporting
this feature, since in the LISP-specific header and in the Map Records, bits use
d for Map-Versioning can be safely ignored by ITRs and ETRs that do not support
or do not want to use the mechanism.
</t>
<t>
This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-
Versioning", which is the initial experimental specifications of the mechanisms
updated by this document.
</t>
</abstract> The mechanism is optional and transparent to implementations not supporting
this feature, since in the LISP-specific header and in the Map Records, bits use
</front> d for Map-Versioning can be safely ignored by ITRs and ETRs that do not support
or do not want to use the mechanism.
<middle> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-2">
<section title="Introduction" anchor="intro"> This document obsoletes RFC 6834, which is the initial experimental specific
ations of the mechanisms updated by this document.
<t> </t>
This document describes the Map-Versioning mechanism used to provide informa </abstract>
tion on changes in the EID-to-RLOC (Endpoint ID to Routing Locator) mappings use <boilerplate>
d in the LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc683 <section anchor="status-of-memo" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc=
0bis"/><xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/>) context to perform packet enca "exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.1">
psulation. <name slugifiedName="name-status-of-this-memo">Status of This Memo</name
The mechanism is totally transparent to xTRs (Ingress and Egress Tunnel Rout >
ers) not supporting or not using such functionality. <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-1">
<xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction"/> describes the architecture of th This is an Internet Standards Track document.
e Locator/ID Separation Protocol. It is expected that the reader is familiar wi </t>
th this introductory document. <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-2">
</t> This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
<t> received public review and has been approved for publication by
This document obsoletes <xref target="RFC6834"/>, which is the initial exper the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further
imental specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document. information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
</t> RFC 7841.
</t>
<t> <t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-3">
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9302" brackets="non
e"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="copyright" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="excl
ude" pn="section-boilerplate.2">
<name slugifiedName="name-copyright-notice">Copyright Notice</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-1">
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-2">
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<eref target="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info" brackets="none
"/>) 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.
</t>
</section>
</boilerplate>
<toc>
<section anchor="toc" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" p
n="section-toc.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-table-of-contents">Table of Contents</name>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-to
c.1-1">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.1">
<t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.1"><xref der
ivedContent="1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1"/>.  <xref
derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-introduction">
Introduction</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.2">
<t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.1"><xref der
ivedContent="2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2"/>.  <xref
derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-requirements-n
otation">Requirements Notation</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.3">
<t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.1"><xref der
ivedContent="3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3"/>.  <xref
derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-definitions-of
-terms">Definitions of Terms</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.4">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4" form
at="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" f
ormat="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-lisp-specific-header-and-ma">LISP-
Specific Header and Map-Version Numbers</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.5">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><xref derivedContent="5" form
at="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" f
ormat="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-map-record-and-map-version">Map Re
cord and Map-Version</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.6">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><xref derivedContent="6" form
at="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" f
ormat="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-eid-to-rloc-map-version-num">EID-t
o-RLOC Map-Version Number</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="sectio
n-toc.1-1.6.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent=
"6.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6.1"/>.  <xref derived
Content="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-the-null-map-version">
The Null Map-Version</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.7">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><xref derivedContent="7" form
at="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" f
ormat="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-dealing-with-map-version-nu">Deali
ng with Map-Version Numbers</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="sectio
n-toc.1-1.7.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent=
"7.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.1"/>.  <xref derived
Content="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-handling-dest-map-vers
ion-n">Handling Dest Map-Version Number</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent=
"7.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.2"/>.  <xref derived
Content="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-handling-source-map-ve
rsion">Handling Source Map-Version Number</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.8">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.8.1"><xref derivedContent="8" form
at="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-8"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" f
ormat="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-security-considerations">Security
Considerations</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.9">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.1"><xref derivedContent="9" form
at="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-9"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" f
ormat="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-deployment-considerations">Deploym
ent Considerations</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.10">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.10.1"><xref derivedContent="10" fo
rmat="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-10"/>. <xref derivedContent=""
format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iana-considerations">IANA Consid
erations</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.11">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.11.1"><xref derivedContent="11" fo
rmat="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-11"/>. <xref derivedContent=""
format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-references">References</xref></t
>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="sectio
n-toc.1-1.11.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.11.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.11.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent
="11.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-11.1"/>.  <xref deri
vedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-normative-reference
s">Normative References</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.11.2.2">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.11.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent
="11.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-11.2"/>.  <xref deri
vedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-informative-referen
ces">Informative References</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.1"><xref derivedContent="Append
ix A" format="default" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a"/>.  <xref
derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-benefits-and-ca
se-studies-f">Benefits and Case Studies for Map-Versioning</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="sectio
n-toc.1-1.12.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent
="A.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a.1"/>.  <xr
ef derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-map-versioni
ng-and-unidirec">Map-Versioning and Unidirectional Traffic</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent
="A.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a.2"/>.  <xr
ef derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-map-versioni
ng-and-interwor">Map-Versioning and Interworking</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="se
ction-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2.1.1"><xref derive
dContent="A.2.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a.
2.1"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-
map-versioning-and-proxy-it">Map-Versioning and Proxy-ITRs</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2.2">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2.2.1"><xref derive
dContent="A.2.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a.
2.2"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-
map-versioning-and-lisp-nat">Map-Versioning and LISP-NAT</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2.3">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.2.2.3.1"><xref derive
dContent="A.2.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a.
2.3"/>.  <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-
map-versioning-and-proxy-et">Map-Versioning and Proxy-ETRs</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.3">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.12.2.3.1"><xref derivedContent
="A.3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a.3"/>.  <xr
ef derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-rloc-shutdow
n-withdraw">RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.13">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.13.1"><xref derivedContent="" form
at="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.b"/><xref derivedContent="
" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Add
resses</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</section>
</toc>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="intro" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn
="section-1">
<name slugifiedName="name-introduction">Introduction</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-1">
This document describes the Map-Versioning mechanism used to provide informa
tion on changes in the Endpoint-ID-to-Routing-Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings use
d in the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) <xref target="RFC9300" format="de
fault" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9300"/> <xref target="RFC9301" form
at="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/> context to perform pa
cket encapsulation.
The mechanism is totally transparent to Ingress and Egress Tunnel Routers (x
TRs) not supporting or not using such functionality.
The architecture of LISP is described in <xref target="RFC9299" format="defau
lt" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9299"/>. The reader is expected to be
familiar with this introductory document.
</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-2">
This document obsoletes <xref target="RFC6834" format="default" sectionForma
t="of" derivedContent="RFC6834"/>, which is the initial experimental specificati
on that describes the mechanisms updated by this document.
</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-3">
The basic mechanism is to associate a Map-Version number to each LISP EID-to -RLOC mapping and transport such a version number in the LISP-specific header. The basic mechanism is to associate a Map-Version number to each LISP EID-to -RLOC mapping and transport such a version number in the LISP-specific header.
When a mapping changes, a new version number is assigned to the updated mapp ing. When a mapping changes, a new version number is assigned to the updated mapp ing.
A change in an EID-to-RLOC mapping can be a modification in the RLOCs set su A change in an EID-to-RLOC mapping can be a modification in the RLOCs set, s
ch as addition, removal, or change in priority or weight of one or more RLOCs. uch as addition of, removal of, or change in the priority or weight of one or mo
</t> re RLOCs.
<t>
When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain the vers
ion number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in the outer header (i.e
., both source and destination RLOCs).
This information has two uses. On the one hand, it enables the ETR (Egress T
unnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) is
using the latest mapping version for the destination EID.
If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send a Map-Request containing
the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it of the latest version. The ETR can
also solicit the ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by se
nding it a Solicit Map-Request (SMR) message. Both cases are defined in <xref ta
rget="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/>.
On the other hand, it enables an ETR receiving such a packet to know if it h
as in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.
If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.
</t>
<t>
Considerations about the deployment of LISP Map-Versioning are discussed in
<xref target="considerations"/>.
</t>
<t>
Benefits brought by Map-Versioning in some common LISP-related use cases are
discussed in <xref target="benefits"/>.
</t>
</section> <!-- Introduction -->
<section title="Requirements Notation">
<t>
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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
<xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as sh
own here.
</t>
</section> <!-- Requirements Notation -->
<section title="Definitions of Terms" anchor="terms">
<t>
This document uses terms already defined in the main LISP specification (<xr
ef target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis
"/>).
Here, we define the terms that are specific to the Map-Versioning mechanism.
Throughout the whole document, Big Endian bit ordering is used.
</t>
<t>
<list hangIndent="2" style="hanging">
<t hangText="Map-Version number:"> An unsigned 12-bit integer is assigned
to an EID-to-RLOC mapping, indicating its version number (<xref target="vnum"/>)
.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-4">
<t hangText="Null Map-Version:"> A Map-Version number with a value of 0x00 When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
0 (zero), used to signal that the Map-Version feature is not used and no Map-Ver the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
sion number is assigned to the EID-to-RLOC mapping (<xref target="sec_null"/>). the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs). This
information has two uses:
</t> </t>
<ol spacing="normal" indent="adaptive" start="1" type="1" pn="section-1-5"
<t hangText="Dest Map-Version number:"> Map-Version of the mapping in the >
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the "Destina <li pn="section-1-5.1" derivedCounter="1.">Map-Versioning enables the Egr
tion Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-encapsulated packets ess Tunnel Router (ETR) receiving
(<xref target="dmvn"/>). the packet to know if the Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) is using the latest
mapping version for the destination EID. If this is not the case, the ET
R
can directly send a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to
the ITR to notify it of the latest version. The ETR can also solicit the
ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending
a Solicit Map-Request (SMR) message. Both options are defined in
<xref target="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent
="RFC9301"/>.</li>
<li pn="section-1-5.2" derivedCounter="2.">Map-Versioning enables an ETR
receiving the packet to know if it
has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the
source EID. If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.</li>
</ol>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-6">
Considerations about the deployment of LISP Map-Versioning are discussed in
<xref target="considerations" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent
="Section 9"/>.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-7">
<t hangText="Source Map-Version number:"> Map-Version of the mapping in th The benefits of Map-Versioning in some common LISP-related use cases are discuss
e EID-to-RLOC Database used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the "Source ed in <xref target="benefits" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent
Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-encapsulated packets (<xr ="Appendix A"/>.
ef target="smvn"/>).
</t> </t>
</section>
</list> <section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2">
</t> <name slugifiedName="name-requirements-notation">Requirements Notation</na
me>
</section> <!-- Definitions of Terms --> <t indent="0" pn="section-2-1">
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
<section title="LISP-specific Header and Map-Version Numbers" anchor="lisphdr"> "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>
",
<t> "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
be
interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default" s
ectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="defa
ult" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they app
ear in all capitals, as
shown here.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="terms" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn
="section-3">
<name slugifiedName="name-definitions-of-terms">Definitions of Terms</name
>
<t indent="0" pn="section-3-1">
This document uses terms already defined in the main LISP specifications (<x
ref target="RFC9300" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9300
"/> and <xref target="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedConten
t="RFC9301"/>).
Here, we define the terms that are specific to the Map-Versioning mechanism.
Throughout the whole document, big-endian bit ordering is used.
</t>
<dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="2" pn="section-3-2">
<dt pn="section-3-2.1">Map-Version number:</dt>
<dd pn="section-3-2.2"> An unsigned 12-bit integer is assigned to an EID
-to-RLOC mapping, indicating its version number (<xref target="vnum" format="def
ault" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6"/>).</dd>
<dt pn="section-3-2.3">Null Map-Version:</dt>
<dd pn="section-3-2.4"> A Map-Version number with a value of 0x000 (zero
), which is used to signal that the Map-Version feature is not used and no Map-V
ersion number is assigned to the EID-to-RLOC mapping (<xref target="sec_null" fo
rmat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6.1"/>).</dd>
<dt pn="section-3-2.5">Dest Map-Version number:</dt>
<dd pn="section-3-2.6"> Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Ma
p-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the 'Destination Routing L
ocator' field of the outer IP header of LISP-encapsulated packets (<xref target=
"dmvn" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.1"/>).</dd>
<dt pn="section-3-2.7">Source Map-Version number:</dt>
<dd pn="section-3-2.8"> Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Da
tabase used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the 'Source Routing Locator
' field of the outer IP header of LISP-encapsulated packets (<xref target="smvn"
format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.2"/>).</dd>
</dl>
</section>
<section anchor="lisphdr" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
pn="section-4">
<name slugifiedName="name-lisp-specific-header-and-ma">LISP-Specific Heade
r and Map-Version Numbers</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-4-1">
In order for the versioning approach to work, the LISP-specific header has t o carry both the Source Map-Version number and Dest Map-Version number. In order for the versioning approach to work, the LISP-specific header has t o carry both the Source Map-Version number and Dest Map-Version number.
This is done by setting the V-bit in the LISP-specific header as specified i This is done by setting the V-bit in the LISP-specific header as specified i
n <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis" /> and shown in the example in <xref n <xref target="RFC9300" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC
target="lispshimhdr"/>. 9300"/> and shown in the example in <xref target="lispshimhdr" format="default"
All permissible combinations of the flags when the V-bit is set to 1 are des sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 1"/>.
cribed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>. All permissible combinations of the flags when the V-bit is set to 1 are des
cribed in <xref target="RFC9300" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedCont
ent="RFC9300"/>.
Not all of the LISP-encapsulated packets need to carry version numbers. Not all of the LISP-encapsulated packets need to carry version numbers.
When the V-bit is set, the LISP-specific header has the following encoding: When the V-bit is set, the LISP-specific header has the following encoding:
</t> </t>
<figure anchor="lispshimhdr" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figur
<figure anchor="lispshimhdr" title="LISP-Specific header example when Map-Vers e-1">
ioning is in use."> <name slugifiedName="name-lisp-specific-header-exampl">LISP-Specific Hea
<artwork> der Example When Map-Versioning Is in Use</name>
<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-4-2.1">
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork> </artwork>
</figure> </figure>
<dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="2" pn="section-4-3">
<t> <dt pn="section-4-3.1">Source Map-Version number (12 bits):</dt>
<list hangIndent="2" style="hanging"> <dd pn="section-4-3.2"> See <xref target="terms" format="default" sectio
nFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3"/>.</dd>
<t hangText="Source Map-Version number (12 bits):"> See <xref target="term <dt pn="section-4-3.3">Dest Map-Version number (12 bits):</dt>
s"/>. <dd pn="section-4-3.4"> See <xref target="terms" format="default" sectio
</t> nFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 3"/>.</dd>
</dl>
<t hangText="Dest Map-Version number (12 bits):"> See <xref target="terms" </section>
/>. <section anchor="vnumpkt" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
pn="section-5">
<name slugifiedName="name-map-record-and-map-version">Map Record and Map-V
ersion</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-5-1">
To accommodate the mechanism, the Map Records that are transported in Map-Re
quest/Map-Reply/Map-Register messages need to carry the Map-Version number as we
ll. For reference, the Map Record (specified in <xref target="RFC9301" format="
default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>) is reported here as an e
xample in <xref target="maprecord" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedCo
ntent="Figure 2"/>. This memo does not change the operation of Map-Request/Map-R
eply/Map-Register messages; they continue to be used as specified in <xref targe
t="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>.
</t> </t>
<figure anchor="maprecord" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-
</list> 2">
</t> <name slugifiedName="name-map-record-format-example">Map-Record Format E
xample</name>
</section> <!-- LISP Header --> <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-5-2.1">
<section title="Map Record and Map-Version" anchor= "vnumpkt">
<t>
To accommodate the mechanism, the Map Records that are transported in Map-Re
quest/Map-Reply/Map-Register messages need to carry the Map-Version number as we
ll. For reference, the Map Record (specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc
6833bis"/>) is reported here as an example in <xref target="maprecord"/>. This m
emo does not change the operation of Map-Request/Map-Reply/Map-Register messages
, they continue to be used as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bi
s"/>.
</t>
<figure anchor="maprecord" title="Map-Record format example.">
<artwork>
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-&gt; +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Record TTL | | | Record TTL |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved |
e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI | c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI |
o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
r | EID-Prefix | r | EID-Prefix |
d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight |
| L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI |
| c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| \| Locator | | \| Locator |
+-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-&gt; +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork> </artwork>
</figure> </figure>
<dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="2" pn="section-5-3">
<t> <dt pn="section-5-3.1">Map-Version Number:</dt>
<dd pn="section-5-3.2">Map-Version of the mapping contained in the Recor
<list hangIndent="2" style="hanging"> d.
As explained in <xref target="sec_null" format="default" sectionFormat="
<t hangText="Map-Version Number:"> of" derivedContent="Section 6.1"/>, this field can be zero (0), meaning that no
Map-Version of the mapping contained in the Record. Map-Version is associated to the mapping. </dd>
As explained in <xref target="sec_null"/>, this field can be zero (0), m </dl>
eaning that no Map-Version is associated to the mapping. <t indent="0" pn="section-5-4">
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
This packet format is backward compatible with xTRs that do not support Map- Versioning, since they can simply ignore those bits. This packet format is backward compatible with xTRs that do not support Map- Versioning, since they can simply ignore those bits.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-5-5">
<t> A Map-Server receiving a message with an unexpected Map-Version number, for
A Map-Server receiving a message with an unexpected Map-Version number, like instance an old one, <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> silently drop the message
for instance an old one, MUST silently drop the message and an appropriate log action <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be taken.
and an appropriate log action SHOULD be taken. </t>
</t> </section>
<section anchor="vnum" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn=
</section> <!-- Map Record and Map-Version --> "section-6">
<name slugifiedName="name-eid-to-rloc-map-version-num">EID-to-RLOC Map-Ver
<section title="EID-to-RLOC Map-Version Number" anchor="vnum"> sion Number</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-1">
<t>
The EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number consists of an unsigned 12-bit integer. The EID-to-RLOC Map-Version number consists of an unsigned 12-bit integer.
The version number is assigned on a per-mapping basis, meaning that differen The version number is assigned on a per-mapping basis, meaning that differen
t mappings have a different version number, which is also updated independently. t mappings have different version numbers, which are updated independently.
An update in the version number (i.e., a newer version) MUST consist of an i An update in the version number (i.e., a newer version) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
ncrement of the older version number (only exception is for the Null Map-Version consist of an increment of the older version number (the only exception is for t
as explained in at the end of <xref target="sec_null"/>). he Null Map-Version as explained in at the end of <xref target="sec_null" format
</t> ="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6.1"/>).
<t>
The space of version numbers has a circular order where half of the version
numbers are considered greater (i.e., newer) than the current Map-Version number
and the other half of the version numbers are considered smaller (i.e., older)
than the current Map-Version number. This is basically a serial number on which
the arithmetic described in <xref target="RFC1982"/> applies. The ordering enabl
es reacting differently to "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding th
e packet in the former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see <xre
f target="dealing"/> for further details).
In a formal way, assuming that we have two version numbers V1 and V2, both d
ifferent from the special value Null Map-Version (see <xref target="sec_null"/>)
, and that the numbers are expressed on 12 bits, the following steps MUST be per
formed (in the same order as shown below) to strictly define their order:
</t>
<t>
<list hangIndent="2" style="numbers">
<t> V1 = V2 : The Map-Version numbers are the same.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-2">
<t> V2 > V1 : if and only if The space of version numbers has a circular order where half of the versi
<list hangIndent="2" style="hanging"> on numbers are considered greater (i.e., newer) than the current Map-Version num
ber and the other half of the version numbers are considered smaller (i.e., olde
<t hangText=" "> V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) &lt;= 2**(12-1) r) than the current Map-Version number. This is basically a serial number on whi
</t> ch the arithmetic described in <xref target="RFC1982" format="default" sectionFo
rmat="of" derivedContent="RFC1982"/> applies. The ordering enables different
<t hangText=" "> OR reactions to "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby
</t> "older" numbers are discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see <xre
f target="dealing" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7
<t hangText=" "> V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1) "/> for further details).
In a formal way, assuming that we have two version numbers (V1 and V2), both
different from the special value Null Map-Version (see <xref target="sec_null"
format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6.1"/>), and that th
e numbers are expressed on 12 bits, the following steps <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be p
erformed (in the same order shown below) to strictly define their order:
</t>
<ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-6-3"
>
<li pn="section-6-3.1" derivedCounter="1."> V1 = V2 : The Map-Version num
bers are the same.
</li>
<li pn="section-6-3.2" derivedCounter="2.">
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-3.2.1"> V2 &gt; V1 : if and only if
</t> </t>
<t indent="2" pn="section-6-3.2.2"> V2 &gt; V1 AND (V2 - V1) &lt;=
</list> 2<sup>(12-1)</sup></t>
<t indent="2" pn="section-6-3.2.3"> OR</t>
<t indent="2" pn="section-6-3.2.4"> V1 &gt; V2 AND (V1 - V2) &gt;
2<sup>(12-1)</sup></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-6-3.3" derivedCounter="3."> V1 &gt; V2 : otherwise.
</li>
</ol>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-4">
Using 12 bits and assuming a Map-Version value of 69, Map-Version numbers in
the range [70; 69 + 2048] are greater than 69, while Map-Version numbers in the
range [69 + 2049; (69 + 4095) mod 4096] are smaller than 69.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-5">
<t> V1 > V2 : otherwise. The initial Map-Version number of a new EID-to-RLOC mapping <bcp14>SHOULD</b
cp14> be assigned randomly, but it <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be set to the Null Ma
p-Version value (0x000), because the Null Map-Version number has a special meani
ng (see <xref target="sec_null" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedConte
nt="Section 6.1"/>). Optionally, the initial Map-version number may be configure
d.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-6">
</list>
</t>
<t>
Using 12 bits and assuming a Map-Version value of 69, Map-Version numbers in
the range [70; 69 + 2048] are greater than 69, while Map-Version numbers in the
range [69 + 2049; (69 + 4095) mod 4096] are smaller than 69.
</t>
<t>
The initial Map-Version number of a new EID-to-RLOC mapping SHOULD be assign
ed randomly, but it MUST NOT be set to the Null Map-Version value (0x000), becau
se the Null Map-Version number has a special meaning (see <xref target="sec_null
"/>). Optionally, the initial Map-version number may be configured.
</t>
<t>
Upon reboot, an ETR will use mappings configured in its EID-to-RLOC Database . Upon reboot, an ETR will use mappings configured in its EID-to-RLOC Database .
If those mappings have a Map-Version number, it will be used according to th e mechanisms described in this document. If those mappings have a Map-Version number, it will be used according to th e mechanisms described in this document.
ETRs MUST NOT automatically generate and assign Map-Version numbers to mappi ETRs <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> automatically generate and assign Map-Version n
ngs in the EID-to-RLOC Database. umbers to mappings in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
</t> </t>
<section anchor="sec_null" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="fals
<section title="The Null Map-Version" anchor="sec_null"> e" pn="section-6.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-the-null-map-version">The Null Map-Version</na
<t> me>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-1">
The value 0x000 (zero) is a special Map-Version number indicating that the re is actually no version number associated to the EID-to-RLOC mapping. The value 0x000 (zero) is a special Map-Version number indicating that the re is actually no version number associated to the EID-to-RLOC mapping.
Such a value is used for special purposes and is named the Null Map-Versio n number. Such a value is used for special purposes and is named the Null Map-Versio n number.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-2">
<t>
Map Records that have a Null Map-Version number indicate that there is no Map-Version number associated with the mapping. Map Records that have a Null Map-Version number indicate that there is no Map-Version number associated with the mapping.
This means that LISP-encapsulated packets destined to the EID-Prefix refer This means that LISP-encapsulated packets destined to the EID-Prefix refer
red to by the Map Record MUST NOT contain any Map-Version numbers (V bit set to red to by the Map Record <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> contain any Map-Version numbers
0). (V-bit set to 0).
If an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated packets with the V-bit set, when the If an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated packets with the V-bit set, when the
original mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Database has the version number set to the N original mapping in the EID-to-RLOC Database has the version number set to the N
ull Map-Version value, then those packets MUST be silently dropped. ull Map-Version value, then those packets <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be silently droppe
</t> d.
</t>
<t> <t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-3">
The Null Map-Version may appear in the LISP-specific header as a Source Ma The Null Map-Version may appear in the LISP-specific header as a Source Ma
p-Version number (<xref target="smvn"/>). p-Version number (<xref target="smvn" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derive
dContent="Section 7.2"/>).
When the Source Map-Version number is set to the Null Map-Version value, i t means that no map version information is conveyed for the source site. When the Source Map-Version number is set to the Null Map-Version value, i t means that no map version information is conveyed for the source site.
This means that if a mapping exists for the source EID in the EID-to-RLOC This means that if a mapping exists for the source EID in the EID-to-RLOC
Map-Cache, then the ETR MUST NOT compare the received Null Map-Version with the Map-Cache, then the ETR <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> compare the received Null Map-Ve
content of the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache (<xref target="smvn"/>). rsion with the content of the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache (<xref target="smvn" format=
</t> "default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.2"/>).
</t>
<t> <t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-4">
The fact that the 0 value has a special meaning for the Map-Version number The fact that the 0 value has a special meaning for the Map-Version number
implies that, when updating a Map-Version number because of a change in the map implies that, when updating a Map-Version number because of a change in the map
ping, if the next value is 0, then the Map-Version number MUST be incremented by ping, if the next value is 0, then the Map-Version number <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
2 (i.e., set to 1 (0x001), which is the next valid value). incremented by 2 (i.e., set to 1 (0x001), which is the next valid value).
</t> </t>
</section>
</section> <!-- Null Map-Version --> </section>
<section anchor="dealing" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
</section> <!-- version number --> pn="section-7">
<name slugifiedName="name-dealing-with-map-version-nu">Dealing with Map-Ve
<section title="Dealing with Map-Version Numbers" anchor="dealing"> rsion Numbers</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-7-1">
<t> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is a chang a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
e in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the weights due to Tr weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
affic Engineering policies, or a change in the priorities) or a LISP site realiz priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
es that one or more of its own RLOCs are not reachable anymore from a local pers are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
pective (e.g., through IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
, also assigning a new Map-Version number. a new Map-Version number.
Only the latest Map-Version number has to be considered valid. Mapping updat Only the latest Map-Version number has to be considered valid. Mapping updat
es, and their corresponding Map Version Number must be managed so that a very ol es and their corresponding Map-Version Number must be managed so that a very old
d version number will not be confused as a new version number (because of the ci version number will not be confused as a new version number (because of the cir
rcular numbering space). To this end simple measures can be taken, like updating cular numbering space). To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest version, or waiting updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
sufficient time to be sure that mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiti version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
ng at least as much as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in <xref target="I-D mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/>). as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in <xref target="RFC9301" forma
</t> t="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>).
<t>
An ETR receiving a LISP packet with Map-Version numbers checks the following
predicates:
<list style="numbers">
<t>
The ITR that has sent the packet has an up-to-date mapping in its EID-to
-RLOC Map-Cache for the destination EID and is performing encapsulation correctl
y. See <xref target="dmvn"/> for details.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-7-2">
An ETR receiving a LISP packet with Map-Version numbers checks the following
predicates:
<t>
In the case of bidirectional traffic, the mapping in the local ETR EID-t
o-RLOC Map-Cache for the source EID is up-to-date. See <xref target="smvn"/> for
details.
</t> </t>
<ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-7-3"
</list> >
<li pn="section-7-3.1" derivedCounter="1.">The ITR that has sent the pack
</t> et has an up-to-date mapping in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache for the destination EI
D and is performing encapsulation correctly. See <xref target="dmvn" format="def
<section title="Handling Destination Map-Version Number" ault" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.1"/> for details.</li>
anchor="dmvn"> <li pn="section-7-3.2" derivedCounter="2.">In the case of bidirectional
traffic, the mapping in the local ETR EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache for the source EID i
<t> s up to date. See <xref target="smvn" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derive
dContent="Section 7.2"/> for details.</li>
</ol>
<section anchor="dmvn" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" p
n="section-7.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-handling-dest-map-version-n">Handling Dest Map
-Version Number</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-7.1-1">
When an ETR receives a packet, the Dest Map-Version number relates to the mapping for the destination EID for which the ETR is an RLOC. When an ETR receives a packet, the Dest Map-Version number relates to the mapping for the destination EID for which the ETR is an RLOC.
This mapping is part of the ETR EID-to-RLOC Database. This mapping is part of the ETR EID-to-RLOC Database.
Since the ETR is authoritative for the mapping, it has the correct and up- to-date Dest Map-Version number. Since the ETR is authoritative for the mapping, it has the correct and up- to-date Dest Map-Version number.
A check on this version number MUST be done, where the following cases can A check on this version number <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be done, where the foll
arise: owing cases can arise:
<list style="numbers">
<t>
The packet arrives with the same Dest Map-Version number stored in the
EID-to-RLOC Database.
This is the regular case.
The ITR sending the packet has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache an up-to-d
ate mapping. No further actions are needed.
</t> </t>
<ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-7.
<t> 1-2">
The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number newer (as defined in <li pn="section-7.1-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">The packet arrives with th
<xref target="vnum"/>) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. e same Dest Map-Version number stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database.
This is the regular case.
The ITR sending the packet has, in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache, an up-to
-date mapping. No further actions are needed.</li>
<li pn="section-7.1-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">The packet arrives with a
Dest Map-Version number newer (as defined in <xref target="vnum" format="defaul
t" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6"/>) than the one stored in the E
ID-to-RLOC Database.
Since the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-Ve rsion number of its mapping is the correct one, Since the ETR is authoritative on the mapping, meaning that the Map-Ve rsion number of its mapping is the correct one,
the packet carries a version number that is not considered valid and the packet carries a version number that is not considered valid. The
packet MUST be silently dropped and an appropriate log action SHOULD be taken. refore, the packet <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be silently dropped and an appropriate lo
</t> g action <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be taken.</li>
<li pn="section-7.1-2.3" derivedCounter="3.">The packet arrives with a
<t> Dest Map-Version number older (as defined in <xref target="vnum" format="defaul
The packet arrives with a Dest Map-Version number older (as defined in t" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6"/>) than the one stored in the E
<xref target="vnum"/>) than the one stored in the EID-to-RLOC Database. ID-to-RLOC Database.
This means that the ITR sending the packet has an old mapping in its E ID-to-RLOC Map-Cache containing stale information. This means that the ITR sending the packet has an old mapping in its E ID-to-RLOC Map-Cache containing stale information.
The ETR MAY choose to normally process the encapsulated datagram accor The ETR <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> choose to normally process the encapsulated
ding to <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/>; however, the ITR sending the datagram according to <xref target="RFC9300" format="default" sectionFormat="of
packet MUST be informed that a newer mapping is " derivedContent="RFC9300"/>; however, the ITR sending the packet <bcp14>MUST</b
available, respecting rate-limitation policies described in <xref targ cp14> be informed that a newer mapping is
et="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/>. available, respecting rate-limitation policies described in <xref targ
et="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>.
This is done with a Map-Request message sent back to the ITR, This is done with a Map-Request message sent back to the ITR,
as specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/>. as specified in <xref target="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat= "of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>.
One feature introduced by Map-Version numbers is the possibility of bl ocking traffic not using the latest mapping. This can happen if an ITR is not up dating the mapping for which the ETR is authoritative, or it might be some form of attack. One feature introduced by Map-Version numbers is the possibility of bl ocking traffic not using the latest mapping. This can happen if an ITR is not up dating the mapping for which the ETR is authoritative, or it might be some form of attack.
According to rate limitation policy defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf- According to the rate-limitation policy defined in <xref target="RFC93
lisp-rfc6833bis"/> for Map-Request messages, after 10 retries Map-Requests are s 01" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/> for Map-Reque
ent every 30 seconds, if after the first 10 retries the Dest Map-Version number st messages, after 10 retries, Map-Requests are sent every 30 seconds; if after
in the packets is not updated, the ETR SHOULD drop packets with a stale Map-Vers the first 10 retries the Dest Map-Version number in the packets is not updated,
ion number. Operators can configure exceptions to this recommendation, which are the ETR <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> drop packets with a stale Map-Version number. Oper
outside the scope of this document. ators can configure exceptions to this recommendation, which are outside the sco
</t> pe of this document.</li>
</list> </ol>
<t indent="0" pn="section-7.1-3">
The rule in the third case MAY be more restrictive. The rule in the third case <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be more restrictive.
If the Record TTL of the previous mapping has already expired, all packets If the Record TTL of the previous mapping has already expired, all packets
arriving with an old Map-Version MUST be silently dropped right away without is arriving with an old Map-Version <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be silently dropped right
suing any Map-Request. away without issuing any Map-Request.
Such action is permitted because if the new mapping with the updated versi Such action is permitted because, if the new mapping with the updated vers
on number has been unchanged for at least the same time as the Record TTL of the ion number has been unchanged for at least the same amount of time as the Record
older mapping, all the entries in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Caches of ITRs must have TTL of the older mapping, all the entries in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Caches of ITRs
expired. must have expired.
Indeed, all ITRs sending traffic should have refreshed the mapping accordi Indeed, all ITRs sending traffic should have refreshed the mapping accordi
ng to <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/>. ng to <xref target="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent=
"RFC9301"/>.
</t>
<t>
It is a protocol violation for LISP-encapsulated packets to contain a Dest
Map-Version number equal to the Null Map-Version number, see <xref target="sec_
null"/>.
</t>
</section> <!-- Handling Destination Map-Version number -->
<section title="Handling Source Map-Version Number" </t>
anchor="smvn"> <t indent="0" pn="section-7.1-4">
<t> It is a protocol violation for LISP-encapsulated packets to contain a Dest
Map-Version number equal to the Null Map-Version number (see <xref target="sec_
null" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6.1"/>).
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="smvn" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" p
n="section-7.2">
<name slugifiedName="name-handling-source-map-version">Handling Source M
ap-Version Number</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-7.2-1">
When an ETR receives a packet, the Source Map-Version number relates to th e mapping for the source EID for which the ITR that sent the packet is authorita tive. When an ETR receives a packet, the Source Map-Version number relates to th e mapping for the source EID for which the ITR that sent the packet is authorita tive.
If the ETR has an entry in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache for the source EID, t If the ETR has an entry in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache for the source EID, t
hen a check MUST be performed and the following cases can arise: hen a check <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be performed, and the following cases can arise:
<list style="numbers">
<t>
The packet arrives with the same Source Map-Version number as that sto
red in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache. This is the regular case. The ETR has in its E
ID-to-RLOC Map-Cache an up-to-date copy of the mapping. No further actions are n
eeded.
</t> </t>
<ol spacing="normal" type="1" indent="adaptive" start="1" pn="section-7.
<t> 2-2">
The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number newer (as defined <li pn="section-7.2-2.1" derivedCounter="1.">The packet arrives with th
in <xref target="vnum"/>) than the one stored in the local EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache e same Source Map-Version number as that stored in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache. Th
. is is the regular case. The ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache an up-to-date c
opy of the mapping. No further actions are needed.</li>
<li pn="section-7.2-2.2" derivedCounter="2.">The packet arrives with a
Source Map-Version number newer (as defined in <xref target="vnum" format="defa
ult" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6"/>) than the one stored in the
local EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache.
This means that the ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache a mapping tha t is stale and needs to be updated. This means that the ETR has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache a mapping tha t is stale and needs to be updated.
A Map-Request MUST be sent to get the new mapping for the source EID, A Map-Request <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be sent to get the new mapping for t
respecting rate-limitation policies described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc he source EID, respecting rate-limitation policies described in <xref target="RF
6833bis"/>. C9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>.</li>
</t> <li pn="section-7.2-2.3" derivedCounter="3.">The packet arrives with a
Source Map-Version number older (as defined in <xref target="vnum" format="defa
<t> ult" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 6"/>) than the one stored in the
The packet arrives with a Source Map-Version number older (as defined local EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache.
in <xref target="vnum"/>) than the one stored in the local EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
.
Note that if the mapping is already present in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cac he, this means that an explicit Map-Request has been sent and a Map-Reply has be en received from an authoritative source. Note that if the mapping is already present in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cac he, this means that an explicit Map-Request has been sent and a Map-Reply has be en received from an authoritative source.
In this situation, the packet SHOULD be silently dropped. In this situation, the packet <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be silently droppe
Operators can configure exceptions to this recommendation, which are o d.
utside the scope of this document. Operators can configure exceptions to this recommendation, which are o
utside the scope of this document.</li>
</ol>
<t indent="0" pn="section-7.2-3">
If the ETR does not have an entry in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache for the sou
rce EID, then the Source Map-Version number <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored. See
<xref target="utrf" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Appendix
A.1"/> for an example of when this situation can arise.
</t> </t>
</section>
</list> </section>
<section anchor="security" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
</t> pn="section-8">
<name slugifiedName="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations
<t> </name>
If the ETR does not have an entry in the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache for the sou <t indent="0" pn="section-8-1">
rce EID, then the Source Map-Version number MUST be ignored. See <xref target="u
trf" /> for an example of when this situation can arise.
</t>
</section> <!-- Handling Source Map-Version Number -->
</section> <!-- Dealing Mapping Version numbers -->
<section title="Security Considerations" anchor="security">
<t>
This document builds on the specification and operation of the This document builds on the specification and operation of the
LISP control and data planes. The Security Considerations of <xref target="I LISP control and data planes. The Security Considerations of <xref target="R
-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis"/> apply a FC9300" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9300"/> and <xref
nd, as such, Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and MUST o target="RFC9301" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>
nly be used in trusted and closed deployments. apply. As such, Map-Versioning <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used over the public
A thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in <xref target="RFC7835" Internet and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> only be used in trusted and closed deployments.
/>. A thorough security analysis of LISP is documented in <xref target="RFC7835"
</t> format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC7835"/>.
<t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-8-2">
Attackers can try to trigger a large number of Map-Requests by simply forgin g packets with random Map-Versions. Attackers can try to trigger a large number of Map-Requests by simply forgin g packets with random Map-Versions.
The Map-Requests are rate-limited as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lis The Map-Requests are rate limited as described in <xref target="RFC9301" for
p-rfc6833bis"/>. mat="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>.
With Map-Versioning it is possible to filter packet carrying invalid versio With Map-Versioning, it is possible to filter packets carrying invalid vers
n numbers before triggering a Map-Request, thus helping to reduce the effects of ion numbers before triggering a Map-Request, thus helping to reduce the effects
DoS attacks. of DoS attacks.
However, it might not be enough to really protect from a DDoS attack. However, it might not be enough to really protect against a DDoS attack.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-8-3">
<t> The present memo includes log action to be taken upon certain events. It is
The present memo includes log action to be taken upon certains event. It is recommended that implementations include mechanisms (which are beyond the scope
recommended that implementations include mechanisms (which are beyond the scope of this document) to avoid log resource exhaustion attacks.
of this document) to avoid log resource exhaustion attacks. </t>
</t> <t indent="0" pn="section-8-4">
The specifications in the present memo are relatively conservative in the se
<t> nse that, in several cases, the packets are dropped. Such an approach is the out
The specifications in the present memo are relatively conservative in the se come of considerations made about the possible risks that control plane actions
nse that in several cases the packets are dropped. Such an approach is the outco that are triggered by the data plane can be used to carry out attacks. There exi
me of considerations made about the possible risks that data-plane-triggered con sts corner cases where, even with an invalid Map-Version number, forwarding the
trol-plane actions can be used to carry out attacks. There exists corner cases w packet might be potentially considered safe; however, system manageability has b
here, even with an invalid Map-Version number, forwarding the packet might be po een given priority with respect to having to put in place more machinery to be a
tentially considered safe, however, system manageability has been given priority ble to identify legitimate traffic.
with respect to having to put in place more machinery to be able to identify le </t>
ggitimate traffic. </section>
</t> <section anchor="considerations" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="
false" pn="section-9">
</section> <!-- Security Considerations --> <name slugifiedName="name-deployment-considerations">Deployment Considerat
ions</name>
<section title="Deployment Considerations" anchor="considerations"> <t indent="0" pn="section-9-1">
<t>
LISP requires multiple ETRs within the same site to provide identical mappin gs for a given EID-Prefix. LISP requires multiple ETRs within the same site to provide identical mappin gs for a given EID-Prefix.
Map-Versioning does not require additional synchronization mechanisms. Clear Map-Versioning does not require additional synchronization mechanisms. Clear
ly, all the ETRs have to reply with the same mapping including same Map-Version ly, all the ETRs have to reply with the same mapping, including the same Map-Ver
number; otherwise, there can be an inconsistency that creates additional control sion number; otherwise, there can be an inconsistency that creates additional co
traffic, instabilities, and traffic disruptions. ntrol traffic, instabilities, and traffic disruptions.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-9-2">
<t>
There are two ways Map-Versioning is helpful with respect to synchronization . There are two ways Map-Versioning is helpful with respect to synchronization .
On the one hand, assigning version numbers to mappings helps in debugging, s ince quick checks on the consistency of the mappings on different ETRs can be do ne by looking at the Map-Version number. On the one hand, assigning version numbers to mappings helps in debugging, s ince quick checks on the consistency of the mappings on different ETRs can be do ne by looking at the Map-Version number.
On the other hand, Map-Versioning can be used to control the traffic toward ETRs that announce the latest mapping. On the other hand, Map-Versioning can be used to control the traffic toward ETRs that announce the latest mapping.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-9-3">
<t> As an example, let's consider the topology of <xref target="vtraffic" format
As an example, let's consider the topology of <xref target="vtraffic"/> wher ="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 3"/> where ITR A.1 of Domai
e ITR A.1 of Domain A is sending unidirectional traffic to Domain B, while A.2 o n A is sending unidirectional traffic to Domain B, while A.2 of Domain A exchang
f Domain A exchanges bidirectional traffic with Domain B. &nbsp; es bidirectional traffic with Domain B.
In particular, ITR A.2 sends traffic to ETR B, and ETR A.2 receives traffic from ITR B. In particular, ITR A.2 sends traffic to ETR B, and ETR A.2 receives traffic from ITR B.
</t> </t>
<figure anchor="vtraffic" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-3
<figure anchor="vtraffic" title="Example topology."> ">
<artwork><![CDATA[ <name slugifiedName="name-example-topology">Example Topology</name>
<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-9-4.1">
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Domain A | | Domain B | | Domain A | | Domain B |
| +---------+ | | | +---------+ | |
| | ITR A.1 |--- | | | | ITR A.1 |--- | |
| +---------+ \ +---------+ | | +---------+ \ +---------+ |
| | ------->| ETR B | | | | -------&gt;| ETR B | |
| | ------->| | | | | -------&gt;| | |
| +---------+ / | | | | +---------+ / | | |
| | ITR A.2 |--- -----| ITR B | | | | ITR A.2 |--- -----| ITR B | |
| | | / +---------+ | | | | / +---------+ |
| | ETR A.2 |<----- | | | | ETR A.2 |&lt;----- | |
| +---------+ | | | +---------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
]]></artwork> </artwork>
</figure> </figure>
<t indent="0" pn="section-9-5">
<t>
Obviously, in the case of Map-Versioning, both ITR A.1 and ITR A.2 of Domain A must use the same value; otherwise, the ETR of Domain B will start to send Ma p-Requests. Obviously, in the case of Map-Versioning, both ITR A.1 and ITR A.2 of Domain A must use the same value; otherwise, the ETR of Domain B will start to send Ma p-Requests.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-9-6">
<t> The same problem can, however, arise without Map-Versioning, for instance, i
The same problem can, however, arise without Map-Versioning, for instance, i f the two ITRs of Domain A send different Locator-Status-Bits. In this case, eit
f the two ITRs of Domain A send different Locator-Status-Bits. In this case, eit her the traffic is disrupted if ETR B does not verify reachability or if ETR B w
her the traffic is disrupted if ETR B does not verify reachability, or if ETR B ill start sending Map-Requests to confirm each change in reachability.
will start sending Map-Requests to confirm each change in reachability. </t>
</t> <t indent="0" pn="section-9-7">
<t>
So far, LISP does not provide any specific synchronization mechanism but ass umes that synchronization is provided by configuring the different xTRs consiste ntly. So far, LISP does not provide any specific synchronization mechanism but ass umes that synchronization is provided by configuring the different xTRs consiste ntly.
The same applies for Map-Versioning. If in the future any synchronization me The same applies for Map-Versioning. If in the future any synchronization me
chanism is provided, Map-Versioning will take advantage of it automatically, sin chanism is provided, Map-Versioning will take advantage of it automatically, sin
ce it is included in the Map Record format, as described in <xref target="vnumpk ce it is included in the Map Record format, as described in <xref target="vnumpk
t"/>. t" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 5"/>.
</t> </t>
</section>
</section> <!-- considerations --> <section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-10">
<name slugifiedName="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</name>
<section title="IANA Considerations"> <t indent="0" pn="section-10-1">This document has no IANA actions.</t>
</section>
<t> </middle>
This document includes no request to IANA. <back>
</t> <references pn="section-11">
<name slugifiedName="name-references">References</name>
</section> <!-- IANA --> <references pn="section-11.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-normative-references">Normative References</na
</middle> me>
<reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2
<back> 119" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="no"?> <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</tit
<references title='Normative References'> le>
&rfc2119; <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
&rfc8174; <date month="March" year="1997"/>
&draft6830bis; <abstract>
&draft6833bis; <t indent="0">In many standards track documents several words are
used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often ca
</references> pitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in I
ETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for t
<references title='Informative References'> he Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
&rfc7835; </t>
&rfc6832; </abstract>
&rfc6834; </front>
&rfc1982; <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
&draftLISP-Intro; <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</references> </reference>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?> <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8
174" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8174">
<!-- Appendix --> <front>
<section title="Benefits and Case Studies for Map-Versioning" anchor="benefits"> <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</ti
tle>
<t> <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
In the following sections, we provide more discussion on various aspects and <date month="May" year="2017"/>
uses of Map-Versioning. Security observations are grouped in <xref target="secu <abstract>
rity"/>. <t indent="0">RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used
</t> in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clar
ifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meani
<section title="Map-Versioning and Unidirectional Traffic" anchor="utrf"> ngs.</t>
</abstract>
<t> </front>
When using Map-Versioning, the LISP-specific header carries two Map-Versio <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
n numbers, for both source and destination mappings. <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
This can raise the question on what will happen in the case of unidirectio <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
nal flows, for instance, in the case presented in <xref target="utraffic"/>, sin </reference>
ce the LISP specifications do not mandate that the ETR have a mapping from the s <reference anchor="RFC9300" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9
ource EID. 300" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9300">
<front>
<title>The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)</title>
<author initials="D" surname="Farinacci" fullname="Dino Farinacci">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="V" surname="Fuller" fullname="Vince Fuller">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Meyer" fullname="David Meyer">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Lewis" fullname="Darrel Lewis">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="A" surname="Cabellos" fullname="Albert Cabellos" r
ole="editor">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2022" month="October"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9300"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9300"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9301" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9
301" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9301">
<front>
<title>Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control Plane</title>
<author initials="D" surname="Farinacci" fullname="Dino Farinacci">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="F" surname="Maino" fullname="Fabio Maino">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="V" surname="Fuller" fullname="Vince Fuller">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="A" surname="Cabellos" fullname="Albert Cabellos" r
ole="editor">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2022" month="October"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9301"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9301"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references pn="section-11.2">
<name slugifiedName="name-informative-references">Informative References
</name>
<reference anchor="RFC1982" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1
982" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC1982">
<front>
<title>Serial Number Arithmetic</title>
<author fullname="R. Elz" initials="R." surname="Elz"/>
<author fullname="R. Bush" initials="R." surname="Bush"/>
<date month="August" year="1996"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">The DNS has long relied upon serial number arithmeti
c, a concept which has never really been defined, certainly not in an IETF docum
ent, though which has been widely understood. This memo supplies the missing de
finition. It is intended to update RFC1034 and RFC1035. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1982"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1982"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6832" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6
832" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6832">
<front>
<title>Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) an
d Non-LISP Sites</title>
<author fullname="D. Lewis" initials="D." surname="Lewis"/>
<author fullname="D. Meyer" initials="D." surname="Meyer"/>
<author fullname="D. Farinacci" initials="D." surname="Farinacci"/>
<author fullname="V. Fuller" initials="V." surname="Fuller"/>
<date month="January" year="2013"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">This document describes techniques for allowing site
s running the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) to interoperate with Interne
t sites that may be using either IPv4, IPv6, or both but that are not running LI
SP. A fundamental property of LISP-speaking sites is that they use Endpoint Ide
ntifiers (EIDs), rather than traditional IP addresses, in the source and destina
tion fields of all traffic they emit or receive. While EIDs are syntactically i
dentical to IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, normally routes to them are not carried in t
he global routing system, so an interoperability mechanism is needed for non- LI
SP-speaking sites to exchange traffic with LISP-speaking sites. This document i
ntroduces three such mechanisms. The first uses a new network element, the LISP
Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (Proxy-ITR), to act as an intermediate LISP Ingress
Tunnel Router (ITR) for non-LISP- speaking hosts. Second, this document adds N
etwork Address Translation (NAT) functionality to LISP ITRs and LISP Egress Tunn
el Routers (ETRs) to substitute routable IP addresses for non-routable EIDs. Fi
nally, this document introduces the Proxy Egress Tunnel Router (Proxy-ETR) to ha
ndle cases where a LISP ITR cannot send packets to non-LISP sites without encaps
ulation. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet commun
ity.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6832"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6832"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6834" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6
834" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC6834">
<front>
<title>Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning</title>
<author fullname="L. Iannone" initials="L." surname="Iannone"/>
<author fullname="D. Saucez" initials="D." surname="Saucez"/>
<author fullname="O. Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure
"/>
<date month="January" year="2013"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">This document describes the LISP (Locator/ID Separat
ion Protocol) Map-Versioning mechanism, which provides in-packet information abo
ut Endpoint ID to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mappings used to encapsulate LIS
P data packets. The proposed approach is based on associating a version number
to EID-to-RLOC mappings and the transport of such a version number in the LISP-s
pecific header of LISP-encapsulated packets. LISP Map-Versioning is particularl
y useful to inform communicating Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and Egress Tunnel
Routers (ETRs) about modifications of the mappings used to encapsulate packets.
The mechanism is transparent to implementations not supporting this feature, s
ince in the LISP- specific header and in the Map Records, bits used for Map-Vers
ioning can be safely ignored by ITRs and ETRs that do not support the mechanism.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6834"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6834"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC7835" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7
835" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC7835">
<front>
<title>Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis</title>
<author fullname="D. Saucez" initials="D." surname="Saucez"/>
<author fullname="L. Iannone" initials="L." surname="Iannone"/>
<author fullname="O. Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure
"/>
<date month="April" year="2016"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">This document provides a threat analysis of the Loca
tor/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7835"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7835"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9299" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9
299" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC9299">
<front>
<title>An Architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Pr
otocol (LISP)</title>
<author initials="A" surname="Cabellos" fullname="Albert Cabellos">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="D" surname="Saucez" fullname="Damien Saucez" role=
"editor">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2022" month="October"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9299"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9299"/>
</reference>
</references>
</references>
<section anchor="benefits" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
pn="section-appendix.a">
<name slugifiedName="name-benefits-and-case-studies-f">Benefits and Case S
tudies for Map-Versioning</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a-1">
In the following sections, we provide more discussion on various aspects and
uses of Map-Versioning. Security observations are grouped in <xref target="secu
rity" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 8"/>.
</t>
<section anchor="utrf" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" p
n="section-appendix.a.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-map-versioning-and-unidirec">Map-Versioning an
d Unidirectional Traffic</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.1-1">
When using Map-Versioning, the LISP-specific header carries two Map-Versio
n numbers for both source and destination mappings.
This can raise the question on what will happen in the case of unidirectio
nal flows, for instance, in the case presented in <xref target="utraffic" format
="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 4"/>, since the LISP specif
ications do not mandate that the ETR have a mapping from the source EID.
<figure anchor="utraffic" title="Unidirectional traffic between LISP </t>
domains."> <figure anchor="utraffic" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure
<artwork><![CDATA[ -4">
<name slugifiedName="name-unidirectional-traffic-betw">Unidirectional
Traffic between LISP Domains</name>
<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-appendix.a.1-
2.1">
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Domain A | | Domain B | | Domain A | | Domain B |
| +---------+ +---------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | ITR A |----------->| ETR B | | | | ITR A |-----------&gt;| ETR B | |
| +---------+ +---------+ | | +---------+ +---------+ |
| | | | | | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
]]></artwork> </artwork>
</figure> </figure>
</t> <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.1-3">
An ITR is able to put both the source and destination version numbers in t
<t> he LISP-specific header since the Source Map-Version number is in its database,
An ITR is able to put both the source and destination version numbers in t while the Dest Map-Version number is in its cache.
he LISP-specific header since the Source Map-Version number is in its database w </t>
hile the Destination Map-Version number is in its cache. <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.1-4">
</t> The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source Map-V
ersion number as specified in the final sentence of <xref target="smvn" format=
<t> "default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.2"/>.
The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source Map-V </t>
ersion number as specified in the final sentence of <xref target="smvn"/>, igno </section>
ring the Source Map-Version number. <section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-app
</t> endix.a.2">
<name slugifiedName="name-map-versioning-and-interwor">Map-Versioning an
</section> <!-- Unidirectional Traffic --> d Interworking</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2-1">
<section title="Map-Versioning and Interworking"> Map-Versioning is compatible with the LISP interworking between LISP and n
on-LISP sites as defined in <xref target="RFC6832" format="default" sectionForma
<t> t="of" derivedContent="RFC6832"/>.
Map-Versioning is compatible with the LISP interworking between LISP and n
on-LISP sites as defined in <xref target="RFC6832"/>.
LISP interworking defines three techniques to allow communication LISP sit es and non-LISP sites, namely: Proxy-ITR, LISP-NAT, and Proxy-ETR. LISP interworking defines three techniques to allow communication LISP sit es and non-LISP sites, namely: Proxy-ITR, LISP-NAT, and Proxy-ETR.
The following text describes how Map-Versioning relates to these three mec hanisms. The following text describes how Map-Versioning relates to these three mec hanisms.
</t> </t>
<section anchor="pitr" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
<section title="Map-Versioning and Proxy-ITRs" anchor="pitr"> pn="section-appendix.a.2.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-map-versioning-and-proxy-it">Map-Versioning
<t> and Proxy-ITRs</name>
The purpose of the Proxy-ITR (PITR) is to encapsulate traffic originatin <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.1-1">
g in a non-LISP site in order to deliver the packet to one of the ETRs of the LI The purpose of the Proxy-ITR (PITR) is to encapsulate traffic originatin
SP site (cf. <xref target="fpitr"/>). g in a non-LISP site in order to deliver the packet to one of the ETRs of the LI
This case is very similar to the unidirectional traffic case described i SP site (cf. <xref target="fpitr" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedCon
n <xref target="utrf"/>; hence, similar rules apply. tent="Figure 5"/>).
This case is very similar to the unidirectional traffic case described i
n <xref target="utrf" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Append
ix A.1"/>; hence, similar rules apply.
<figure anchor="fpitr" </t>
title="Unidirectional traffic from non-LISP domain to LISP domain."> <figure anchor="fpitr" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-
<artwork><![CDATA[ 5">
<name slugifiedName="name-unidirectional-traffic-from">Unidirectiona
l Traffic from Non-LISP Domain to LISP Domain</name>
<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-appendix.a.
2.1-2.1">
+----------+ +-------------+ +----------+ +-------------+
| LISP | | non-LISP | | LISP | | non-LISP |
| Domain A | | Domain B | | Domain A | | Domain B |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | | | +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | ETR A |<-------| Proxy ITR |&lt;-------| | | | ETR A |<-------| Proxy-ITR |&lt;-------| |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | | | +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+----------+ +-------------+ +----------+ +-------------+
]]></artwork> </artwork>
</figure> </figure>
</t> <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.1-3">
<t>
The main difference is that a Proxy-ITR does not have any mapping, since it just encapsulates packets arriving from the non-LISP site, and thus cannot p rovide a Source Map-Version. The main difference is that a Proxy-ITR does not have any mapping, since it just encapsulates packets arriving from the non-LISP site, and thus cannot p rovide a Source Map-Version.
In this case, the proxy-ITR will just put the Null Map-Version value as In this case, the Proxy-ITR will just put the Null Map-Version value as
the Source Map-Version number, while the receiving ETR will ignore the field. the Source Map-Version number, while the receiving ETR will ignore the field.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.1-4">
<t> With this setup, LISP Domain A is able to check whether the PITR is usin
With this setup, LISP Domain A is able to check whether the PITR is usin g the latest mapping. In the Dest Map-Version Number of the LISP-specific header
g the latest mapping. The Proxy ITR will put in the Dest Map-Version Number, of , the Proxy-ITR will put the version number of the mapping it is using for encap
the LISP-specific header, the version number of the mapping it is using for enca sulation; the ETR A can use such value as defined in <xref target="dmvn" format=
psulation, the ETR A can use such value as defined in <xref target="dmvn" />. "default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.1"/>.
</t> </t>
</section>
</section> <!-- Proxy-ITRs --> <section anchor="lispnat" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="fal
se" pn="section-appendix.a.2.2">
<section title="Map-Versioning and LISP-NAT" anchor="lispnat"> <name slugifiedName="name-map-versioning-and-lisp-nat">Map-Versioning
and LISP-NAT</name>
<t> <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.2-1">
The LISP-NAT mechanism is based on address translation from non-routable EIDs to routable EIDs and does not involve any form of encapsulation. As such, Map-Versioning does not apply in this case. The LISP-NAT mechanism is based on address translation from non-routable EIDs to routable EIDs and does not involve any form of encapsulation. As such, Map-Versioning does not apply in this case.
</t> </t>
</section>
</section> <!-- LISP-NAT --> <section anchor="petr" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false"
pn="section-appendix.a.2.3">
<section title="Map-Versioning and Proxy-ETRs" anchor="petr"> <name slugifiedName="name-map-versioning-and-proxy-et">Map-Versioning
and Proxy-ETRs</name>
<t> <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.3-1">
The purpose of the Proxy-ETR (PETR) is to decapsulate traffic originatin The purpose of the Proxy-ETR (PETR) is to decapsulate traffic originatin
g in a LISP site in order to deliver the packet to the non-LISP site (cf. <xref g in a LISP site in order to deliver the packet to the non-LISP site (cf. <xref
target="fpetr"/>). target="fpetr" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="Figure 6"/>).
One of the main reasons to deploy PETRs is to bypass Unicast Reverse Pat h Forwarding checks on the domain. One of the main reasons to deploy PETRs is to bypass Unicast Reverse Pat h Forwarding checks on the domain.
<figure anchor="fpetr" </t>
title="Unidirectional traffic from LISP domain to non-LISP domain."> <figure anchor="fpetr" align="left" suppress-title="false" pn="figure-
<artwork><![CDATA[ 6">
<name slugifiedName="name-unidirectional-traffic-from-">Unidirection
al Traffic from LISP Domain to Non-LISP Domain</name>
<artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt="" pn="section-appendix.a.
2.3-2.1">
+----------+ +-------------+ +----------+ +-------------+
| LISP | | non-LISP | | LISP | | non-LISP |
| Domain A | | Domain B | | Domain A | | Domain B |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | | | +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | ITR A |------->| Proxy ETR |-------&gt;| | | | ITR A |------->| Proxy-ETR |-------&gt;| |
| +-------+ +-----------+ | | | +-------+ +-----------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+----------+ +-------------+ +----------+ +-------------+
]]></artwork> </artwork>
</figure> </figure>
</t> <t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.3-3">
<t>
A Proxy-ETR does not have any mapping, since it just decapsulates packet s arriving from the LISP site. A Proxy-ETR does not have any mapping, since it just decapsulates packet s arriving from the LISP site.
In this case, the ITR can interchangeably put a Map-Version value or the In this case, the ITR can interchangeably put a Map-Version value or the
Null Map-Version value as the Dest Map-Version number since the receiving Proxy Null Map-Version value as the Dest Map-Version number, since the receiving Prox
-ETR will ignore the field. y-ETR will ignore the field.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.2.3-4">
<t> With this setup, the Proxy-ETR, by looking at the Source Map-Version Num
With this setup, the Proxy-ETR, by looking at the Source Map-Version Num ber, is able to check whether the mapping of the source EID has changed. This is
ber, is able to check whether the mapping of the source EID has changed. This is useful to perform source RLOC validation. In the example above, traffic coming
useful to perform source RLOC validation. In the example above, traffic coming from the LISP domain has to be LISP encapsulated with a source address being an
from LISP domain has to be LISP-encapsulated with a source address being an RLOC RLOC of the domain. The Proxy-ETR can retrieve the mapping associated to the LIS
of the domain. The Proxy ETR can retrieve the mapping associated to the LISP do P domain and check if incoming LISP-encapsulated traffic is arriving from a vali
main and check if incoming LISP-encapsulated traffic is arriving from a valid RL d RLOC. A change in the RLOC-Set that can be used as source addresses can be sig
OC. A change in the RLOC set that can be used as source addresses can be signale naled via the version number, with the Proxy-ETR able to request the latest mapp
d via the version number, with the Proxy ETR able to request the latest mapping ing if necessary as described in <xref target="smvn" format="default" sectionFor
if necessary as described in <xref target="smvn"/>. mat="of" derivedContent="Section 7.2"/>.
</t> </t>
</section>
</section> <!-- Proxy-ETRs --> </section>
<section anchor="shutdown" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="fals
</section> <!-- Map-Versioning and LISP interworking --> e" pn="section-appendix.a.3">
<name slugifiedName="name-rloc-shutdown-withdraw">RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw
<section title="RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw" anchor="shutdown"> </name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.3-1">
<t> Map-Versioning can also be used to perform a graceful shutdown or to withd
Map-Versioning can also be used to perform a graceful shutdown or withdraw raw a specific RLOC.
of a specific RLOC. This is achieved by simply issuing a new mapping, with an updated Map-Vers
This is achieved by simply issuing a new mapping, with an updated Map-Vers ion number where the specific RLOC to be shut down is withdrawn or announced as
ion number where the specific RLOC to be shut down is withdrawn or announced as unreachable (via the R-bit in the Map Record; see <xref target="RFC9301" format=
unreachable (via the R bit in the Map Record; see <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-rf "default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC9301"/>) but without actually tu
c6833bis"/>), but without actually turning it off. rning it off.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.3-2">
<t>
Upon updating the mapping, the RLOC will receive less and less traffic bec ause remote LISP sites will request the updated mapping and see that it is disab led. At least one TTL, plus a little time for traffic transit, after the mapping is updated, it should be safe to shut down the RLOC gracefully, because all sit es actively using the mapping should have been updated. Upon updating the mapping, the RLOC will receive less and less traffic bec ause remote LISP sites will request the updated mapping and see that it is disab led. At least one TTL, plus a little time for traffic transit, after the mapping is updated, it should be safe to shut down the RLOC gracefully, because all sit es actively using the mapping should have been updated.
</t> </t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a.3-3">
<t> Note that a change in ETR for a flow can result in the reordering of the p
Note that a change in ETR for a flow can result in the re-ordering of the acket in the flow just as any other routing change could cause reordering.
packet in the flow just as any other routing change could cause re-ordering. </t>
</t> </section>
</section>
</section> <!-- RLOC Shutdown/Withdraw --> <section anchor="authors-addresses" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc
="include" pn="section-appendix.b">
</section> <!-- Benefits Case Studies --> <name slugifiedName="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</name>
<author fullname="Luigi Iannone" initials="L." surname="Iannone">
</back> <organization showOnFrontPage="true">Huawei Technologies France</organiz
ation>
<address>
<email>luigi.iannone@huawei.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Damien Saucez" initials="D." surname="Saucez">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true">Inria</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93</street>
<city>Sophia Antipolis</city>
<country>France</country>
</postal>
<email>damien.saucez@inria.fr</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Olivier Bonaventure" initials="O." surname="Bonaventure"
>
<organization showOnFrontPage="true">Universite catholique de Louvain</o
rganization>
<address>
<email>olivier.bonaventure@uclouvain.be</email>
</address>
</author>
</section>
</back>
</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
773 lines changed or deleted 1144 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.