rfc9306.original   rfc9306.txt 
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft Cisco Request for Comments: 9306 Cisco
Updates: 8060 (if approved) V. Ermagan Updates: 8060 V. Ermagan
Intended status: Experimental Google Category: Experimental Google, Inc.
Expires: 7 January 2023 A. Smirnov ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Smirnov
V. Ashtaputre V. Ashtaputre
Cisco Cisco
D. Farinacci D. Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
6 July 2022 October 2022
Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-12
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) This document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor-Specific LCAF. This LCAF
enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for
LCAF addresses. This document updates RFC8060. LCAF addresses. This document updates RFC 8060.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 January 2023. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9306.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Notation
3. Unrecognized LCAF types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Unrecognized LCAF Types
4. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Vendor-Specific LCAF
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Normative References
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP and encoding for different address types that can be used on
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments. deployments of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300]
However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that [RFC9301]. However, certain deployments require specific format
may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use case for
defined. This document extends [RFC8060] to introduce a Vendor which they are defined. This document extends [RFC8060] to introduce
Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF a Vendor-Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF
addresses to be used only on particular LISP implementations. This addresses to be used only on particular LISP implementations. This
document also updates [RFC8060] to specify the behavior when document also updates [RFC8060] to specify the behavior when
receiving unrecognized LCAF Types. receiving unrecognized LCAF types.
2. Requirements Notation 2. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Unrecognized LCAF types 3. Unrecognized LCAF Types
[RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle [RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle an
unrecognized LCAF Type. This document updates [RFC8060] to specify unrecognized LCAF type. This document updates [RFC8060] to specify
that any unrecognized LCAF Type received in a LISP control plane that any unrecognized LCAF type received in a LISP control plane
message MUST be ignored. If all Locators are ignored, this is message MUST be ignored. If all Locators are ignored, this is
equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as
described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. If an EID-Prefix only described in [RFC9301]. If an EID-Prefix only contains unrecognized
contains unrecognized LCAF Types, the LISP control message MUST be LCAF types, the LISP control message MUST be dropped and the event
dropped and the event MUST be logged. MUST be logged. (Here, "EID" refers to Endpoint Identifier.)
4. Vendor Specific LCAF 4. Vendor-Specific LCAF
The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally The Vendor-Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802] to prevent collisions across Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802] to prevent collisions across
vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor-
Specific LCAF is provided below. Specific LCAF is provided below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD | Rsvd2 | Length | | Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) | | Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... | | Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Vendor Specific LCAF Figure 1: Vendor-Specific LCAF
The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor Specific LCAF The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor-Specific LCAF
are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
in [RFC8060]. The "Type" field MUST be set to the value assigned by in [RFC8060]. The Type field MUST be set 255, the value assigned by
IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF (255 is IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor-Specific LCAF; see Section 6.
recommended, see Section 7). The Length field has to be set The Length field has to be set accordingly to the length of the
accordingly to the length of the internal format plus the OUI plus internal format, plus the OUI, plus the Rsvd3 fields, as for
the Rsvd3 fields as for [RFC8060]. The fields defined by the Vendor [RFC8060]. The fields defined by the Vendor-Specific LCAF are as
Specific LCAF are: follows:
Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set
set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
that carries an OUI or CID (Company ID) assigned by the IEEE that carries an OUI or Company ID (CID) assigned by the IEEE
Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802 Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802
[IEEE.802] [IEEE.802]
Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left Internal format: This is a variable-length field that is left
undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its
own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF. own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor-Specific LCAF.
The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where The Vendor-Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where
different organizations interoperate. However, there may be cases different organizations interoperate. However, there may be cases
where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which
they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor-
Specific LCAF. In that case, the organizations involved need to Specific LCAF. In that case, the organizations involved need to
carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular
deployment. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an deployment. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an
organization. organization.
If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor-Specific
LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
message and it SHOULD create a log message. message and it SHOULD create a log message.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to
properly assess the security implications of the formats they define. properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
Security considerations from [RFC8060] apply to this document. Security considerations from [RFC8060] apply to this document.
6. Acknowledgments 6. IANA Considerations
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, and
Alvaro Retana for their suggestions and guidance regarding this
document.
7. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
[RFC8060]) as follows:
+=========+=====================+============================+
| Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+=========+=====================+============================+
| TBD | Vendor Specific | [This Document], Section 4 |
+---------+---------------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA has assigned the
following value for the Vendor-Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060]):
8. Normative References +=======+=====================+=====================+
| Value | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+=======+=====================+=====================+
| 255 | Vendor Specific | RFC 9306, Section 4 |
+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] Table 1: Vendor-Specific LCAF Assignment
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-38, 7 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-38.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 7. Normative References
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31.txt>.
[IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area [IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture", Networks: Overview and Architecture",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, 1 July DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, July 2014,
2014, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847097>. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847097>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.
[RFC9301] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, and
Alvaro Retana for their suggestions and guidance regarding this
document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Cisco
Spain Spain
Email: natal@cisco.com Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan Vina Ermagan
Google Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America United States of America
Email: ermagan@gmail.com Email: ermagan@gmail.com
Anton Smirnov Anton Smirnov
Cisco Cisco
Diegem Diegem
Belgium Belgium
Email: asmirnov@cisco.com Email: asmirnov@cisco.com
Vrushali Ashtaputre Vrushali Ashtaputre
Cisco Cisco
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
United States of America United States of America
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
112 lines changed or deleted 109 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.