I have published rev -03 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/) that fixes a couple of nits identified by Joel.

Changes are highlighted in the attached file.

Thanks,
Fabio



On 3/30/18 3:53 PM, Fabio Maino wrote:
I have updated the lisp-gpe draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/) to reflect Luigi's comments as discussed in London.

Let me know if you have other comments. If not, this should be ready for last call.


Thanks,
Fabio


On 3/8/18 6:05 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
Hi All,

I read the LISP-GPE document.
Hereafter you can find my comments.

Ciao

L.






Internet Engineering Task Force                                 D. Lewis Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Lemon Expires: September 6, 2018                                      Broadcom
P. Agarwal
Innovium
L. Kreeger

                                                                 P. Quinn                                                                  M. Smith                                                                  N. Yadav                                                             F. Maino, Ed.
Cisco
March 05, 2018


                     LISP Generic Protocol Extension
                          draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-01

Abstract

    This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
    (LISP),
I would add “Data-Plane” .

via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-protocol
    encapsulation.

Status of This Memo

    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
    Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months     and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

    This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018.

Copyright Notice

    Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.





Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


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

Table of Contents

    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2       1.1.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3       1.2.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3     2.  LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . .   3     3.  Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)  . . . . . . .   3     4.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5       4.1.  Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5       4.2.  VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5     5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5     6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5     7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6     8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6       8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6       8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7     Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

    LISP, as defined in [RFC6830]
I would not cite 6830 in this document. The document defining the standard is 6830bis, hence I would refer only to the latter.

and extended in
    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines an encapsulation format that
    carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth referred to as IP) packets in a LISP
    header and outer UDP/IP transport.

    The LISP header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated and
    therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP packet
    payloads.  Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348] (which
    defines a similar header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate L2
    protocols such as Ethernet.

    This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in     [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
    the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
    the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.

    A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
    presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field.  The Next Protocol field,



Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


    when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
    and map-versioning features.  The two features are still available,
    albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.

1.1.  Conventions

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Definition of Terms

    This document uses terms already defined in
    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].

2.  LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions

    As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol
    identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried.  Because
    of this, LISP is limited to carry IP payloads.

    The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags
    (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an
    instance ID/Locator-status-bit field.  The flags provide flexibility     to define how the various fields are encoded.  Notably, Flag bit 5 is
    the last reserved bit in the LISP header.


         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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                 LISP Header

3.  Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)

    This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in
    order to support multi-protocol encapsulation:

    P Bit:  Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit
       MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next
       protocol field.




Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


       P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined
       in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit
       because this flag bit is currently unallocated.

    Next Protocol:  The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to
       carry a Next Protocol.  This Next Protocol field contains the
       protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.

       LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce,
       an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning [RFC6834]. These are
       all optional capabilities that are indicated in the LISP header by
       setting the N, E, and the V bit respectively.

       When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
       middle 16 bits.

       When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is
       the middle 16 bits.

       When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0,
       the middle 16-bits are set to 0.

       This draft
s/draft/document/

defines the following Next Protocol values:



       0x1 :  IPv4

       0x2 :  IPv6

       0x3 :  Ethernet

       0x4 :  Network Service Header [RFC8300]


         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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|        Nonce/Map-Version      | Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                               LISP-GPE Header






Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


4.  Backward Compatibility

    LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.

    A LISP-GPE router MUST not encapsulate non-IP packets to a LISP
    router.  A method for determining the capabilities of a LISP router
    (GPE or "legacy") is out of the scope of this draft.

I think this is too restrictive IMO and will will cause problem in incremental deployments.

Imagine deploying LISP-GPE in the beta network…  we cannot because this would mean having a flag day, which is impossible.

I think would be better to have bits N, E, V to 0 when P is 1 in this way there is compatibility.

A legacy LISP data-plane box will never participate in a mapping that is not IP over IP, hence LISP-GPE can send traffic with P=1 and Next protocol equal 1 or 2. The legacy LISP box will receive the packet, will ignore the P bit and decapsulate as IP over IP and will work without problems.

For the other direction, legacy LISP box sending to LISP-GPE box, everything depends again on the mappings. Legacy LISP will talk only to xTR that locators using IP over IP, cannot do otherwise. The receiving LISP-GPE is able to handle legacy LISP traffic.

The mappings deliver the information of "what is mapped on what"  just using LCAF, but details are out of the scope of this document.


    When encapsulating IP packets to a LISP "legacy" router the P bit
    MUST be set to 0.

4.1.  Type of Service

    When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
    802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from     the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in the outer IPv4
    header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' field.

4.2.  VLAN Identifier (VID)

    When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
    header 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or
    used to determine the LISP Instance ID field.

5.  IANA Considerations

    IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
    These are 8-bit values.  Next Protocol values in the table below are
    defined in this draft.
s/draft/document/

  New values are assigned via Standards Action
    [RFC5226].

               +---------------+-------------+---------------+
               | Next Protocol | Description | Reference     |
               +---------------+-------------+---------------+
               | 0             | Reserved    | This Document |
               | 1             | IPv4        | This Document |
               | 2             | IPv6        | This Document |
               | 3             | Ethernet    | This Document |
               | 4             | NSH         | This Document |
               | 5..255        | Unassigned  |               |
               +---------------+-------------+---------------+

6.  Security Considerations

    LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
    considerations documented at length in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
The reference here must be lisp threats not 6833bis.



    With LISP-GPE, issues such as dataplane spoofing, flooding, and




Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


    traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
    encapsulated.

7.  Acknowledgements

    A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
    detailed review.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

    [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
               Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-
               editor.org/info/rfc6834>.

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

This is informative.
    [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
               "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-
               editor.org/info/rfc8300>.








Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


8.2.  Informative References


This is Authoritative.
    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
               Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
               Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
               (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 (work in progress),
               March 2018.

Authors' Addresses

    Darrel Lewis
    Cisco Systems

    Email: darle...@cisco.com


    John Lemon
    Broadcom
    3151 Zanker Road
    San Jose, CA  95134
    USA

    Email: john.le...@broadcom.com


    Puneet Agarwal
    Innovium
    USA

    Email: pun...@acm.org


    Larry Kreeger
    USA

    Email: lkree...@gmail.com


    Paul Quinn
    Cisco Systems

    Email: pa...@cisco.com


    Michael Smith
    Cisco Systems

    Email: michs...@cisco.com



Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018


    Navindra Yadav
    Cisco Systems

    Email: nya...@cisco.com


    Fabio Maino (editor)
    Cisco Systems
    San Jose, CA  95134
    USA

    Email: fma...@cisco.com







































Lewis, et al.           Expires September 6, 2018               [Page 8]
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp


Attachment: wdiff draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-02.txt draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-03.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
lisp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

Reply via email to