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 BroadcomP. Agarwal Innovium L. KreegerP. 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” .I would not cite 6830 in this document. The document defining the standard is 6830bis, hence I would refer only to the latter.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 distributeworking 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 anytime. 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 documentscarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document mustinclude 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 Contents1. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71. Introduction LISP, as defined in [RFC6830]and extended in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines an encapsulation format thatcarries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth referred to as IP) packets in a LISPheader and outer UDP/IP transport.The LISP header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated andtherefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348] (whichdefines a similar header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate L2protocols 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, enablingthe 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 thepresence 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 2018when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncingand 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 thisdocument 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 protocolidentifier that indicates the type of payload being carried. Becauseof 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 aninstance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 isthe last reserved bit in the LISP header. 0 1 2 30 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 definedin [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bitbecause this flag bit is currently unallocated.Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used tocarry 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 areall optional capabilities that are indicated in the LISP header bysetting the N, E, and the V bit respectively.When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is themiddle 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 drafts/draft/document/I think this is too restrictive IMO and will will cause problem in incremental deployments.defines the following Next Protocol values: 0x1 : IPv4 0x2 : IPv6 0x3 : Ethernet 0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] 0 1 2 30 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 HeaderLewis, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 4]Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension March 2018 4. Backward CompatibilityLISP-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.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 inner802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in the outer IPv4header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' field. 4.2. VLAN Identifier (VID) When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the innerheader 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, orused 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 aredefined 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, andLewis, 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 ReferencesThis 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.comLewis, 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.comLewis, et al. Expires September 6, 2018 [Page 8]_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
wdiff draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-02.txt draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-03.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp