< draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10.txt >
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Experimental V. Ermagan Intended status: Experimental V. Ermagan
Expires: October 1, 2021 Google Expires: 14 October 2022 Google
A. Smirnov A. Smirnov
V. Ashtaputre V. Ashtaputre
Cisco Cisco
D. Farinacci D. Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
March 30, 2021 12 April 2022
Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09 draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF), This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF),
the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have
internal encodings for LCAF addresses. internal encodings for LCAF addresses.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 1, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 October 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
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 LISP
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments.
However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that
may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are
defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create defined. This document updates [RFC8060] to introduce a Vendor
LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF
deployments. addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP deployments.
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Vendor Specific LCAF 3. Vendor Specific LCAF
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
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_2001] to prevent collisions across Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] 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 = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length | | Type = TBD | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) | | Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... | | Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 255 to in [RFC8060]. The "Type" field MUST be set to the value 255 to
indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF. The Length field has indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF. The Length field has
to be set accordingly to the length of the internal format plus the to be set accordingly to the length of the internal format plus the
OUI plus the Rsvd3 fields as for [RFC8060]. The fields defined by OUI plus the Rsvd3 fields as for [RFC8060]. The fields defined by
the Vendor Specific LCAF are: the Vendor Specific LCAF are:
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 10
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.
4. Security Considerations 4. 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.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern and Luigi Iannone for The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern and Luigi Iannone for
their suggestions and guidance regarding this document. their suggestions and guidance regarding this document.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], this document requests IANA to Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a
update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific LCAF from the "LISP
defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment: Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
[RFC8060]) as follows:
+---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+ +=========+=====================+============================+
| Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference | | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+ +=========+=====================+============================+
| 255 | Vendor Specific | Section 3 | | TBD | Vendor Specific | [This Document], Section 3 |
+---------+---------------------+-------------------------------+ +---------+---------------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress), Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
November 2020. rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-36.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
November 2020. rfc6833bis-30, 18 November 2020,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-30.txt>.
[IEEE.802_2001] [IEEE.802_2001]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001, Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, 27 July 2002,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>.
[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>.
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
<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>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Cisco
San Jose, CA Spain
USA
Email: natal@cisco.com Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan Vina Ermagan
Google Google
USA 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
USA United States of America
Email: vrushali@cisco.com Email: vrushali@cisco.com
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA United States of America
Email: farinacci@gmail.com Email: farinacci@gmail.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/