idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 5 characters in excess of 72. == There are 9 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. == There are 17 instances of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771 ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 260: '... An ITR SHOULD lookup its mapping sy...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 392: '...t messages, xTRs MAY round robin EID l...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 435: '... However, an implementation SHOULD do...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 30, 2018) is 1974 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Farinacci 3 Internet-Draft lispers.net 4 Intended status: Experimental C. Cantrell 5 Expires: June 3, 2019 Nexus 6 November 30, 2018 8 A Decent LISP Mapping System (LISP-Decent) 9 draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-02 11 Abstract 13 This draft describes how the LISP mapping system designed to be 14 distributed for scale can also be decentralized for management and 15 trust. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 2019. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 4. Push-Based Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 4.1. Components of a Pushed-Based LISP-Decent xTR . . . . . . 5 56 4.2. No LISP Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 4.3. Configuration and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 4.4. Core Seed-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 5. Pull-Based Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 5.1. Components of a Pulled-Based LISP-Decent xTR . . . . . . 9 61 5.2. Deployment Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 62 5.3. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 70 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-02 . . . . . . . . 13 71 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-01 . . . . . . . . 13 72 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-00 . . . . . . . . 13 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 1. Introduction 77 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 78 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 79 (RLOCs) which is intended to provide overlay network functionality. 80 To map from EID to a set or RLOCs, a control-plane mapping system are 81 used [RFC6836] [RFC8111]. These mapping systems are distributed in 82 nature in their deployment for scalability but are centrally managed 83 by a third- party entity, namely a Mapping System Provider (MSP). 84 The entities that use the mapping system, such as data-plane xTRs, 85 depend on and trust the MSP. They do not participate in the mapping 86 system other than to register and retrieve information to/from the 87 mapping system [RFC6833]. 89 This document introduces a Decentralized Mapping System (DMS) so the 90 xTRs can participate in the mapping system as well as use it. They 91 can trust each other rather than rely on third-party infrastructure. 92 The xTRs act as Map-Servers to maintain distributed state for scale 93 and reducing attack surface. 95 2. Definition of Terms 97 Mapping System Provider (MSP): is an infrastructure service that 98 deploys LISP Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers [RFC6833] and possibly 99 ALT-nodes [RFC6836] or DDT-nodes [RFC8111]. The MSP can be 100 managed by a separate organization other than the one that manages 101 xTRs. This model provides a business separation between who 102 manages and is responsible for the control-plane versus who 103 manages the data-plane overlay service. 105 Decentralized Mapping System (DMS): is a mapping system entity that 106 is not third-party to the xTR nodes that use it. The xTRs 107 themselves are part of the mapping system. The state of the 108 mapping system is fully distributed, decentralized, and the trust 109 relies on the xTRs that use and participate in their own mapping 110 system. 112 Pull-Based Mapping System: the mapping system is pull-based meaning 113 that xTRs will lookup and register mappings by algorithmic 114 transformation to locate which Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers are 115 used. It is required that the lookup and registration uses a 116 consistent algorithmic transformation function. Map-Registers are 117 pushed to specific Map-Servers. Map-Requests are external lookups 118 to Map-Resolvers on xTRs that do not participate in the mapping 119 system and internal lookups when they do. 121 Modulus Value: this value is used in the Pull-Based Mapping System. 122 It defines the number of map-server sets used for the mapping 123 system. The modulus value is used to produce a Name Index used 124 for a DNS lookup. 126 Name Index: this index value is used in the Pull-Based 127 Mapping System. For a mapping system that is configured with a 128 map-server set of DNS names in the form of .domain.com, the 129 name index is prepended to to form the lookup name 130 ..domain.com. If the Modulus Value is 8, then the 131 name indexes are 0 through 7. 133 Push-Based Mapping System: the mapping system is push-based meaning 134 that xTRs will push registrations via IP multicast to a group of 135 Map-Servers and do local lookups acting as their own Map- 136 Resolvers. 138 Replication List Entry (RLE): is an RLOC-record format that contains 139 a list of RLOCs that an ITR replicates multicast packets on a 140 multicast overlay. The RLE format is specified in [RFC8060]. 141 RLEs are used with the Pushed-Based mapping system. 143 Group Address EID: is an EID-record format that contains IPv4 144 (0.0.0.0/0, G) or IPv6 (0::/0, G) state. This state is encoded as 145 a Multicast Info Type LCAF specified in [RFC8060]. Members of a 146 seed-group send Map-Registers for (0.0.0.0/0, G) or (0::/0, G) 147 with an RLOC-record that RLE encodes its RLOC address. Details 148 are specified in [RFC8378]. 150 Seed-Group: is a set of Map-Servers joined to a multicast group for 151 the Push-Based Mapping system or are mapped by DNS names in a 152 Pull-Based Mapping System. A core seed-group is used to bootstrap 153 a set of LISP-Decent xTRs so they can learn about each other and 154 use each other's mapping system service. A seed-group can be 155 pull-based to bootstrap a push-based mapping system. That is, a 156 set of DNS mapped map-servers can be used to join the mapping 157 system's IP multicast group. 159 3. Overview 161 The clients of the Decentralized Mapping System (DMS) are also the 162 providers of mapping state. Clients are typically ETRs that Map- 163 Register EID-to-RLOC mapping state to the mapping database system. 164 ITRs are clients in that they send Map-Requests to the mapping 165 database system to obtain EID-to-RLOC mappings that are cached for 166 data-plane use. When xTRs participate in a DMS, they are also acting 167 as Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers using the protocol machinery defined 168 in LISP control-plane specifications [RFC6833], [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec], 169 and [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth]. The xTRs are not required to run the 170 database mapping transport system protocols specified in [RFC6836] or 171 [RFC8111]. 173 This document will describe two decentralized and distributed mapping 174 system mechanisms. A Push-Based Mapping System uses IP multicast so 175 xTRs can find each other by locally joining an IP multicast group. A 176 Pull-Based Mapping System uses DNS with an algorithmic transformation 177 function so xTRs can find each other. 179 4. Push-Based Mapping System 181 The xTRs are organized in a mapping-system group. The group is 182 identified by an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast group address or using a 183 pull-based approach in described in Section 5. When using multicast, 184 the xTRs join the same multicast group and receive LISP control-plane 185 messages addressed to the group. Messages sent to the multicast 186 group are distributed when the underlay network supports IP multicast 187 [RFC6831] or is achieved with the overlay multicast mechanism 188 described in [RFC8378]. When overlay multicast is used and LISP Map- 189 Register messages are sent to the group, they are LISP data 190 encapsulated with a instance-ID set to 0xffffff in the LISP header. 191 The inner header of the encapsulated packet has the destination 192 address set to the multicast group address and the outer header that 193 is prepended has the destination address set to the RLOC of mapping 194 system member. The members of the mapping system group are kept in 195 the LISP data-plane map-cache so packets for the group can be 196 replicated to each member RLOC. 198 All xTRs in a mapping system group will store the same registered 199 mappings and maintain the state as Map-Servers normally do. The 200 members are not only receivers of the multicast group but also send 201 packets to the group. 203 4.1. Components of a Pushed-Based LISP-Decent xTR 205 When an xTR is configured to be a LISP-Decent xTR (or PxTR 206 [RFC6832]), it runs the ITR, ETR, Map-Resolver, and Map-Server LISP 207 network functions. 209 The following diagram shows 3 LISP-Decent xTRs joined to mapping 210 system group 224.1.1.1. When the ETR function of xTR1 originates a 211 Map-Register, it is sent to all xTRs (including itself) synchronizing 212 all 3 Map-Servers in xTR1, xTR2, and xTR3. The ITR function can 213 populate its map-cache by sending a Map-Request locally to its Map- 214 Resolver so it can replicate packets to each RLOC for EID 224.1.1.1. 216 xTR1 217 Map-Request +--------------------+ 218 (always local) | +-----+ +-----+ | 219 +---------------| ITR | | ETR |-------------+ 220 | | +-----+ +-----+ | | 221 | | | | Map-Register to EID 222 | | +-------+ | | 224.1.1.1 encapsulated to 223 +------------------>| MR/MS |<---------------+ RLOCs xTR1, xTR2, and xTR3 224 | +-------+ | | 225 +--------------------+ | 226 | 227 +--------------------+------------+ 228 | | 229 | | 230 +----------v---------+ +----------v---------+ 231 | +--------+ | | +--------+ | 232 | | MR/MS | | | | MR/MS | | 233 | +--------+ | | +--------+ | 234 | +-----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ | 235 | | ITR | | ETR | | | | ITR | | ETR | | 236 | +-----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ | 237 +--------------------+ +--------------------+ 238 xTR2 xTR3 240 Note if any external xTR would like to use a Map-Resolver from the 241 mapping system group, it only needs to have one of the LISP-Decent 242 Map-Resolvers configured. By doing a looking to this Map-Resolver 243 for EID 224.1.1,1, the external xTR could get the complete list of 244 members for the mapping system group. 246 For future study, an external xTR could multicast the Map-Request to 247 224.1.1.1 and either one of the LISP-Decent Map-Resolvers would 248 return a Map-Reply or the external xTR is prepared to receive 249 multiple Map-Replies. 251 4.2. No LISP Protocol Changes 253 There are no LISP protocol changes required to support the push-based 254 LISP-Decent set of procedures. However, an implementation that sends 255 Map-Register messages to a multicast group versus a specific Map- 256 Server unicast address must change to call the data-plane component 257 so the ITR functionality in the node can encapsulate the Map-Register 258 as a unicast packet to each member of the mapping system group. 260 An ITR SHOULD lookup its mapping system group address periodically to 261 determine if the membership has changed. The ITR can also use the 262 pubsub capability documented in [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] to be notified 263 when a new member joins or leaves the multicast group. 265 4.3. Configuration and Authentication 267 When xTRs are joined to a multicast group, they must have their site 268 registration configuration consistent. Any policy or authentication 269 key material must be configured correctly and consistently among all 270 members. When [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] is used to sign Map- 271 Register messages, public-keys can be registered to the mapping 272 system group using the site authentication key mentioned above or 273 using a different authentication key from the one used for 274 registering EID records. 276 4.4. Core Seed-Group 278 A core seed-group can be discovered using a multicast group in a 279 push-based system or a Map-Server set of DNS names in a pull-based 280 system (see Section 5 for details). 282 When using multicast for the mapping system group, a core seed-group 283 multicast group address can be preconfigured to bootstrap the 284 decentralized mapping system. The group address (or DNS name that 285 maps to a group address) can be explicitly configured in a few xTRs 286 to start building up the registrations. Then as other xTRs come 287 online, they can add themselves to the core seed-group by joining the 288 seed-group multicast group. 290 Alternatively or additionally, new xTRs can join a new mapping system 291 multicast group to form another layer of a decentralized mapping 292 system. The group address and members of this new layer seed-group 293 would be registered to the core seed-group address and stored in the 294 core seed-group mapping system. Note each mapping system layer could 295 have a specific function or a specific circle of trust. 297 This multi-layer mapping system can be illustrated: 299 __________ --------- 300 / core \ 224.2.2.2 / layer-1 \ 301 | seed-group | --------> | I | 302 | 224.1.1.1 | | / \ | 303 \__________/ | J---K | 304 | \_________/ 305 | 224.3.3.3 306 | 307 v 308 --------- 309 / layer-2 \ 310 | X | 311 | / \ | 312 | Y---Z | 313 \_________/ 315 Configured in xTRs A, B, and C (they make up the core seed-group): 316 224.1.1.1 -> RLE: A, B, C 318 core seed-group DMS, mapping state in A, B, and C: 319 224.2.2.2 -> RLE: I, J, K 320 224.3.3.3 -> RLE: X, Y, Z 322 layer-1 seed-group DMS (inter-continental), mapping state in I, J, K: 323 EID1 -> RLOCs: i(1), j(2) 324 ... 325 EIDn -> RLOCs: i(n), j(n) 327 layer-2 seed-group DMS (intra-continental), mapping sate in X, Y, Z:: 328 EIDa -> RLOCs: x(1), y(2) 329 ... 330 EIDz -> RLOCs: x(n), y(n) 332 The core seed-group multicast address 224.1.1.1 is configured in xTRs 333 A, B and C so when each of them send Map-Register messages, they 334 would all be able to maintain synchronized mapping state. Any EID 335 can be registered to this DMS but in this example, seed-group 336 multicast group EIDs are being registered only to find other mapping 337 system groups. 339 For example, lets say that xTR I boots up and it wants to find its 340 other peers in its mapping system group 224.2.2.2. Group address 341 224.2.2.2 is configured so xTR I knows what group to join for its 342 mapping system group. But xTR I needs a mapping system to register 343 to, so the core seed-group is used and available to receive Map- 344 Registers. The other xTRs J and K in the mapping system group do the 345 same so when any of I, J or K needs to register EIDs, they can now 346 send their Map-Register messages to group 224.2.2.2. Examples of 347 EIDs being register are EID1 through EIDn shown above. 349 When Map-Registers are sent to group 224.2.2.2, they are encapsulated 350 by the LISP data-plane by looking up EID 224.2.2.2 in the core seed- 351 group mapping system. For the map-cache entry to be populated for 352 224.2.2.2, the data-plane must send a Map-Request so the RLOCs I, J, 353 and K are cached for replication. To use the core seed-group mapping 354 system, the data-plane must know of at least one of the RLOCs A, B, 355 and/or C. 357 5. Pull-Based Mapping System 359 5.1. Components of a Pulled-Based LISP-Decent xTR 361 When an xTR is configured to be a LISP-Decent xTR (or PxTR 362 [RFC6832]), it runs the ITR, ETR, Map-Resolver, and Map-Server LISP 363 network functions. 365 Unlike the Push-Based Mapping System, the xTRs do not need to be 366 organized by joining a multicast group. In a Pull-Based Mappig 367 System, a hash function over an EID is used to identify which xTR is 368 used as the Map-Resolver and Map-Server. The Domain Name System 369 (DNS) [RFC1034] [RFC1035] is used as a resource discovery mechanism. 371 The RLOC addresses of the xTRs will be A and AAAA records for DNS 372 names that map algorithmically from the hash of the EID. A SHA-256 373 hash function [RFC6234] over the following ASCII formatted EID string 374 is used: 376 [] 378 Where is the instance-ID and is the EID of any EID-type 379 defined in [RFC8060]. And then the Modulus Value is used to 380 produce the Name Index used to build the DNS lookup name: 382 eid = "[]" 383 index = hash.sha_256(eid) & (mv - 1) 385 The DNS lookup name becomes: 387 .map-server.domain.com 389 When an xTR does a DNS lookup on the lookup name, it will send Map- 390 Register messages to all A and AAAA records for EID registrations. 392 For Map-Request messages, xTRs MAY round robin EID lookup requests 393 among the A and AAAA records. 395 5.2. Deployment Example 397 Here is an example deployment of a pull-based model. Let's say 4 398 map-server sets are provisioned for the mapping system. Therefore 4 399 distinct DNS names are allocated and a Modulus Value 4 is used. Each 400 DNS name is allocated Name Index 0 through 3: 402 0.map-server.lispers.net 403 1.map-server.lispers.net 404 2.map-server.lispers.net 405 3.map-server.lispers.net 407 The A records for each name can be assigned as: 409 0.map-server.lispers.net: 410 A 411 A 412 1.map-server.lispers.net: 413 A 414 A 415 2.map-server.lispers.net: 416 A 417 A 418 3.map-server.lispers.net: 419 A 420 A 422 When an xTR wants to register "[1000]fd::2222", it hashes the EID 423 string to produce, for example, hash value 0x66. Using the modulus 424 value 4 (0x67 & 0x3) produces index 0x3, so the DNS name 3.map- 425 server.lispers.net is used and a Map-Regiter is sent to 426 and . 428 Note that the pull-based method can be used for a core seed-group for 429 bootstraping a push-based mapping system where multicast groups are 430 registered. 432 5.3. Management Considerations 434 There are no LISP protocol changes required to support the pull-based 435 LISP-Decent set of procedures. However, an implementation SHOULD do 436 periodic DNS lookups to determine if A records have changed for a DNS 437 entry. 439 When xTRs derive Map-Resolver and Map-Server names from the DNS, they 440 need to use the same Modulus Value otherwise some xTRs will lookup 441 EIDs to the wrong place they were registered. 443 The Modulus Value can be configured or pushed to the LISP-Decent 444 xTRs. A future version of this document will describe a push 445 mechanism so all xTRs use a consistent modulus value. 447 6. Security Considerations 449 Refer to the Security Considerations section of 450 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for a complete list of security mechanisms 451 as well as pointers to threat analysis drafts. 453 7. IANA Considerations 455 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 457 8. References 459 8.1. Normative References 461 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 462 STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, 463 . 465 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 466 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 467 November 1987, . 469 [RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms 470 (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, 471 DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, 472 . 474 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 475 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 476 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 477 . 479 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 480 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 481 Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 482 2013, . 484 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 485 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 486 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 487 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 488 . 490 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 491 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 492 DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, 493 . 495 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 496 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 497 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, 498 January 2013, . 500 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 501 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 502 February 2017, . 504 [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. 505 Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated 506 Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, 507 May 2017, . 509 [RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID 510 Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378, 511 DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018, 512 . 514 8.2. Informative References 516 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 517 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 518 Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa- 519 auth-00 (work in progress), September 2018. 521 [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] 522 Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F., 523 Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., Farinacci, D., 524 Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and S. Secci, "Publish/ 525 Subscribe Functionality for LISP", draft-ietf-lisp- 526 pubsub-02 (work in progress), November 2018. 528 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 529 Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, 530 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", 531 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 (work in progress), November 532 2018. 534 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 535 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 536 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 537 (work in progress), November 2018. 539 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 541 The authors would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 542 acceptance of this draft. 544 The authors would also like to give a special thanks to Roman 545 Shaposhnik for several discussions that occured before the first 546 draft was published. 548 Appendix B. Document Change Log 550 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 552 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-02 554 o Posted November 2018. 556 o Changed references from peer-group to seed-group to make the 557 algorithms in this document more like how blockchain networks 558 initialize the peer-to-peer network. 560 o Added pull mechanism to compliment the push mechanism. The pull 561 mechanism could be used as a seed-group to bootstrap the push 562 mechanism. 564 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-01 566 o Posted July 2018. 568 o Document timer and reference update. 570 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-00 572 o Initial draft posted January 2018. 574 Authors' Addresses 576 Dino Farinacci 577 lispers.net 578 San Jose, CA 579 USA 581 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 583 Colin Cantrell 584 Nexus 585 Tempe, AZ 586 USA 588 Email: colin@nexus.io