idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-05.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 19 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 268: '... An ITR SHOULD lookup its mapping sy...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 415: '... The Hash Mask MUST include the stri...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 427: '...t messages, xTRs MAY round robin EID l...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 470: '... 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 (March 18, 2020) is 1497 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RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6833 (Obsoleted by RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: September 19, 2020 Nexus 6 March 18, 2020 8 A Decent LISP Mapping System (LISP-Decent) 9 draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-05 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 September 19, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 63 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 66 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 68 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 69 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 70 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-05 . . . . . . . . 14 71 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-04 . . . . . . . . 14 72 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-03 . . . . . . . . 14 73 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-02 . . . . . . . . 14 74 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-01 . . . . . . . . 14 75 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-00 . . . . . . . . 15 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 1. Introduction 80 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 81 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 82 (RLOCs) which is intended to provide overlay network functionality. 83 To map from EID to a set or RLOCs, a control-plane mapping system are 84 used [RFC6836] [RFC8111]. These mapping systems are distributed in 85 nature in their deployment for scalability but are centrally managed 86 by a third- party entity, namely a Mapping System Provider (MSP). 87 The entities that use the mapping system, such as data-plane xTRs, 88 depend on and trust the MSP. They do not participate in the mapping 89 system other than to register and retrieve information to/from the 90 mapping system [RFC6833]. 92 This document introduces a Decentralized Mapping System (DMS) so the 93 xTRs can participate in the mapping system as well as use it. They 94 can trust each other rather than rely on third-party infrastructure. 95 The xTRs act as Map-Servers to maintain distributed state for scale 96 and reducing attack surface. 98 2. Definition of Terms 100 Mapping System Provider (MSP): is an infrastructure service that 101 deploys LISP Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers [RFC6833] and possibly 102 ALT-nodes [RFC6836] or DDT-nodes [RFC8111]. The MSP can be 103 managed by a separate organization other than the one that manages 104 xTRs. This model provides a business separation between who 105 manages and is responsible for the control-plane versus who 106 manages the data-plane overlay service. 108 Decentralized Mapping System (DMS): is a mapping system entity that 109 is not third-party to the xTR nodes that use it. The xTRs 110 themselves are part of the mapping system. The state of the 111 mapping system is fully distributed, decentralized, and the trust 112 relies on the xTRs that use and participate in their own mapping 113 system. 115 Pull-Based Mapping System: the mapping system is pull-based meaning 116 that xTRs will lookup and register mappings by algorithmic 117 transformation to locate which Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers are 118 used. It is required that the lookup and registration uses a 119 consistent algorithmic transformation function. Map-Registers are 120 pushed to specific Map-Servers. Map-Requests are external lookups 121 to Map-Resolvers on xTRs that do not participate in the mapping 122 system and internal lookups when they do. 124 Modulus Value: this value is used in the Pull-Based Mapping System. 125 It defines the number of map-server sets used for the mapping 126 system. The modulus value is used to produce a Name Index used 127 for a DNS lookup. 129 Name Index: this index value is used in the Pull-Based 130 Mapping System. For a mapping system that is configured with a 131 map-server set of DNS names in the form of .domain.com, the 132 name index is prepended to to form the lookup name 133 ..domain.com. If the Modulus Value is 8, then the 134 name indexes are 0 through 7. 136 Hash Mask: The Hash Mask is used in the Pull-Based Mapping System. 137 It is a mask value with 1 bits left justified. The mask is used 138 to select what high-order bits of an EID-prefix is used in the 139 hash function. 141 Push-Based Mapping System: the mapping system is push-based meaning 142 that xTRs will push registrations via IP multicast to a group of 143 Map-Servers and do local lookups acting as their own Map- 144 Resolvers. 146 Replication List Entry (RLE): is an RLOC-record format that contains 147 a list of RLOCs that an ITR replicates multicast packets on a 148 multicast overlay. The RLE format is specified in [RFC8060]. 149 RLEs are used with the Pushed-Based mapping system. 151 Group Address EID: is an EID-record format that contains IPv4 152 (0.0.0.0/0, G) or IPv6 (0::/0, G) state. This state is encoded as 153 a Multicast Info Type LCAF specified in [RFC8060]. Members of a 154 seed-group send Map-Registers for (0.0.0.0/0, G) or (0::/0, G) 155 with an RLOC-record that RLE encodes its RLOC address. Details 156 are specified in [RFC8378]. 158 Seed-Group: is a set of Map-Servers joined to a multicast group for 159 the Push-Based Mapping system or are mapped by DNS names in a 160 Pull-Based Mapping System. A core seed-group is used to bootstrap 161 a set of LISP-Decent xTRs so they can learn about each other and 162 use each other's mapping system service. A seed-group can be 163 pull-based to bootstrap a push-based mapping system. That is, a 164 set of DNS mapped map-servers can be used to join the mapping 165 system's IP multicast group. 167 3. Overview 169 The clients of the Decentralized Mapping System (DMS) are also the 170 providers of mapping state. Clients are typically ETRs that Map- 171 Register EID-to-RLOC mapping state to the mapping database system. 172 ITRs are clients in that they send Map-Requests to the mapping 173 database system to obtain EID-to-RLOC mappings that are cached for 174 data-plane use. When xTRs participate in a DMS, they are also acting 175 as Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers using the protocol machinery defined 176 in LISP control-plane specifications [RFC6833], [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec], 177 and [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth]. The xTRs are not required to run the 178 database mapping transport system protocols specified in [RFC6836] or 179 [RFC8111]. 181 This document will describe two decentralized and distributed mapping 182 system mechanisms. A Push-Based Mapping System uses IP multicast so 183 xTRs can find each other by locally joining an IP multicast group. A 184 Pull-Based Mapping System uses DNS with an algorithmic transformation 185 function so xTRs can find each other. 187 4. Push-Based Mapping System 189 The xTRs are organized in a mapping-system group. The group is 190 identified by an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast group address or using a 191 pull-based approach in described in Section 5. When using multicast, 192 the xTRs join the same multicast group and receive LISP control-plane 193 messages addressed to the group. Messages sent to the multicast 194 group are distributed when the underlay network supports IP multicast 195 [RFC6831] or is achieved with the overlay multicast mechanism 196 described in [RFC8378]. When overlay multicast is used and LISP Map- 197 Register messages are sent to the group, they are LISP data 198 encapsulated with a instance-ID set to 0xffffff in the LISP header. 199 The inner header of the encapsulated packet has the destination 200 address set to the multicast group address and the outer header that 201 is prepended has the destination address set to the RLOC of mapping 202 system member. The members of the mapping system group are kept in 203 the LISP data-plane map-cache so packets for the group can be 204 replicated to each member RLOC. 206 All xTRs in a mapping system group will store the same registered 207 mappings and maintain the state as Map-Servers normally do. The 208 members are not only receivers of the multicast group but also send 209 packets to the group. 211 4.1. Components of a Pushed-Based LISP-Decent xTR 213 When an xTR is configured to be a LISP-Decent xTR (or PxTR 214 [RFC6832]), it runs the ITR, ETR, Map-Resolver, and Map-Server LISP 215 network functions. 217 The following diagram shows 3 LISP-Decent xTRs joined to mapping 218 system group 224.1.1.1. When the ETR function of xTR1 originates a 219 Map-Register, it is sent to all xTRs (including itself) synchronizing 220 all 3 Map-Servers in xTR1, xTR2, and xTR3. The ITR function can 221 populate its map-cache by sending a Map-Request locally to its Map- 222 Resolver so it can replicate packets to each RLOC for EID 224.1.1.1. 224 xTR1 225 Map-Request +--------------------+ 226 (always local) | +-----+ +-----+ | 227 +---------------| ITR | | ETR |-------------+ 228 | | +-----+ +-----+ | | 229 | | | | Map-Register to EID 230 | | +-------+ | | 224.1.1.1 encapsulated to 231 +------------------>| MR/MS |<---------------+ RLOCs xTR1, xTR2, and xTR3 232 | +-------+ | | 233 +--------------------+ | 234 | 235 +--------------------+------------+ 236 | | 237 | | 238 +----------v---------+ +----------v---------+ 239 | +--------+ | | +--------+ | 240 | | MR/MS | | | | MR/MS | | 241 | +--------+ | | +--------+ | 242 | +-----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ | 243 | | ITR | | ETR | | | | ITR | | ETR | | 244 | +-----+ +-----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ | 245 +--------------------+ +--------------------+ 246 xTR2 xTR3 248 Note if any external xTR would like to use a Map-Resolver from the 249 mapping system group, it only needs to have one of the LISP-Decent 250 Map-Resolvers configured. By doing a looking to this Map-Resolver 251 for EID 224.1.1,1, the external xTR could get the complete list of 252 members for the mapping system group. 254 For future study, an external xTR could multicast the Map-Request to 255 224.1.1.1 and either one of the LISP-Decent Map-Resolvers would 256 return a Map-Reply or the external xTR is prepared to receive 257 multiple Map-Replies. 259 4.2. No LISP Protocol Changes 261 There are no LISP protocol changes required to support the push-based 262 LISP-Decent set of procedures. However, an implementation that sends 263 Map-Register messages to a multicast group versus a specific Map- 264 Server unicast address must change to call the data-plane component 265 so the ITR functionality in the node can encapsulate the Map-Register 266 as a unicast packet to each member of the mapping system group. 268 An ITR SHOULD lookup its mapping system group address periodically to 269 determine if the membership has changed. The ITR can also use the 270 pubsub capability documented in [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] to be notified 271 when a new member joins or leaves the multicast group. 273 4.3. Configuration and Authentication 275 When xTRs are joined to a multicast group, they must have their site 276 registration configuration consistent. Any policy or authentication 277 key material must be configured correctly and consistently among all 278 members. When [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] is used to sign Map- 279 Register messages, public-keys can be registered to the mapping 280 system group using the site authentication key mentioned above or 281 using a different authentication key from the one used for 282 registering EID records. 284 4.4. Core Seed-Group 286 A core seed-group can be discovered using a multicast group in a 287 push-based system or a Map-Server set of DNS names in a pull-based 288 system (see Section 5 for details). 290 When using multicast for the mapping system group, a core seed-group 291 multicast group address can be preconfigured to bootstrap the 292 decentralized mapping system. The group address (or DNS name that 293 maps to a group address) can be explicitly configured in a few xTRs 294 to start building up the registrations. Then as other xTRs come 295 online, they can add themselves to the core seed-group by joining the 296 seed-group multicast group. 298 Alternatively or additionally, new xTRs can join a new mapping system 299 multicast group to form another layer of a decentralized mapping 300 system. The group address and members of this new layer seed-group 301 would be registered to the core seed-group address and stored in the 302 core seed-group mapping system. Note each mapping system layer could 303 have a specific function or a specific circle of trust. 305 This multi-layer mapping system can be illustrated: 307 __________ --------- 308 / core \ 224.2.2.2 / layer-1 \ 309 | seed-group | --------> | I | 310 | 224.1.1.1 | | / \ | 311 \__________/ | J---K | 312 | \_________/ 313 | 224.3.3.3 314 | 315 v 316 --------- 317 / layer-2 \ 318 | X | 319 | / \ | 320 | Y---Z | 321 \_________/ 323 Configured in xTRs A, B, and C (they make up the core seed-group): 324 224.1.1.1 -> RLE: A, B, C 326 core seed-group DMS, mapping state in A, B, and C: 327 224.2.2.2 -> RLE: I, J, K 328 224.3.3.3 -> RLE: X, Y, Z 330 layer-1 seed-group DMS (inter-continental), mapping state in I, J, K: 331 EID1 -> RLOCs: i(1), j(2) 332 ... 333 EIDn -> RLOCs: i(n), j(n) 335 layer-2 seed-group DMS (intra-continental), mapping sate in X, Y, Z:: 336 EIDa -> RLOCs: x(1), y(2) 337 ... 338 EIDz -> RLOCs: x(n), y(n) 340 The core seed-group multicast address 224.1.1.1 is configured in xTRs 341 A, B and C so when each of them send Map-Register messages, they 342 would all be able to maintain synchronized mapping state. Any EID 343 can be registered to this DMS but in this example, seed-group 344 multicast group EIDs are being registered only to find other mapping 345 system groups. 347 For example, lets say that xTR I boots up and it wants to find its 348 other peers in its mapping system group 224.2.2.2. Group address 349 224.2.2.2 is configured so xTR I knows what group to join for its 350 mapping system group. But xTR I needs a mapping system to register 351 to, so the core seed-group is used and available to receive Map- 352 Registers. The other xTRs J and K in the mapping system group do the 353 same so when any of I, J or K needs to register EIDs, they can now 354 send their Map-Register messages to group 224.2.2.2. Examples of 355 EIDs being register are EID1 through EIDn shown above. 357 When Map-Registers are sent to group 224.2.2.2, they are encapsulated 358 by the LISP data-plane by looking up EID 224.2.2.2 in the core seed- 359 group mapping system. For the map-cache entry to be populated for 360 224.2.2.2, the data-plane must send a Map-Request so the RLOCs I, J, 361 and K are cached for replication. To use the core seed-group mapping 362 system, the data-plane must know of at least one of the RLOCs A, B, 363 and/or C. 365 5. Pull-Based Mapping System 367 5.1. Components of a Pulled-Based LISP-Decent xTR 369 When an xTR is configured to be a LISP-Decent xTR (or PxTR 370 [RFC6832]), it runs the ITR, ETR, Map-Resolver, and Map-Server LISP 371 network functions. 373 Unlike the Push-Based Mapping System, the xTRs do not need to be 374 organized by joining a multicast group. In a Pull-Based Mappig 375 System, a hash function over an EID is used to identify which xTR is 376 used as the Map-Resolver and Map-Server. The Domain Name System 377 (DNS) [RFC1034] [RFC1035] is used as a resource discovery mechanism. 379 The RLOC addresses of the xTRs will be A and AAAA records for DNS 380 names that map algorithmically from the hash of the EID. A SHA-256 381 hash function [RFC6234] over the following ASCII formatted EID string 382 is used: 384 []/ 385 []/-/ 387 Where is the instance-ID and is the EID of any EID-type 388 defined in [RFC8060]. And then the Modulus Value is used to 389 produce the Name Index used to build the DNS lookup name: 391 eid = "[]/" 392 index = hash.sha_256(eid) MOD mv 394 The Hash Mask is used to select what bits are used in the SHA-256 395 hash function. This is required to support longest match lookups in 396 the mapping system. The same map-server set needs to be selected 397 when looking up a more-specific EID found in the Map-Request message 398 with one that could match a less-specific EID-prefix registered and 399 found in the Map-Register message. For example, if an EID-prefix 401 [0]240.0.1.0/24 is registered to the mapping system and EID 402 [0]240.0.1.1/32 is looked up to match the registered prefix, a Hash 403 Mask of 8 bytes can be used to AND both the /32 or /24 entries to 404 produce the same hash string bits of "[0]240.0". 406 For (*,G) and (S,G) multicast entries in the mapping system, the hash 407 strings are: 409 sg-eid = "[]/-/" 410 index = hash.sha_256(sg-eid) MOD mv 412 starg-eid = "[]/-0.0.0.0/0" 413 index = hash.sha_256(starg-eid) MOD mv 415 The Hash Mask MUST include the string "[]" and not string 416 . So when looking up [0](2.2.2.2, 224.1.1.1) that will match 417 a (*, 224.1.1.1/32), the hash string produced with a Hash Mask of 12 418 bytes is "[0]224.1.1.1". 420 When the is computed from a unicast or multicast EID, the DNS 421 lookup name becomes: 423 .map-server.domain.com 425 When an xTR does a DNS lookup on the lookup name, it will send Map- 426 Register messages to all A and AAAA records for EID registrations. 427 For Map-Request messages, xTRs MAY round robin EID lookup requests 428 among the A and AAAA records. 430 5.2. Deployment Example 432 Here is an example deployment of a pull-based model. Let's say 4 433 map-server sets are provisioned for the mapping system. Therefore 4 434 distinct DNS names are allocated and a Modulus Value 4 is used. Each 435 DNS name is allocated Name Index 0 through 3: 437 0.map-server.lispers.net 438 1.map-server.lispers.net 439 2.map-server.lispers.net 440 3.map-server.lispers.net 442 The A records for each name can be assigned as: 444 0.map-server.lispers.net: 445 A 446 A 447 1.map-server.lispers.net: 448 A 449 A 450 2.map-server.lispers.net: 451 A 452 A 453 3.map-server.lispers.net: 454 A 455 A 457 When an xTR wants to register "[1000]fd::2222", it hashes the EID 458 string to produce, for example, hash value 0x66. Using the modulus 459 value 4 (0x67 & 0x3) produces index 0x3, so the DNS name 3.map- 460 server.lispers.net is used and a Map-Regiter is sent to 461 and . 463 Note that the pull-based method can be used for a core seed-group for 464 bootstraping a push-based mapping system where multicast groups are 465 registered. 467 5.3. Management Considerations 469 There are no LISP protocol changes required to support the pull-based 470 LISP-Decent set of procedures. However, an implementation SHOULD do 471 periodic DNS lookups to determine if A records have changed for a DNS 472 entry. 474 When xTRs derive Map-Resolver and Map-Server names from the DNS, they 475 need to use the same Modulus Value otherwise some xTRs will lookup 476 EIDs to the wrong place they were registered. 478 The Modulus Value can be configured or pushed to the LISP-Decent 479 xTRs. A future version of this document will describe a push 480 mechanism so all xTRs use a consistent modulus value. 482 6. Security Considerations 484 Refer to the Security Considerations section of 485 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for a complete list of security mechanisms 486 as well as pointers to threat analysis drafts. 488 7. IANA Considerations 490 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 492 8. References 494 8.1. Normative References 496 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 497 STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, 498 . 500 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 501 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 502 November 1987, . 504 [RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms 505 (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, 506 DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, 507 . 509 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 510 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 511 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 512 . 514 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 515 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 516 Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 517 2013, . 519 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 520 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 521 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 522 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 523 . 525 [RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation 526 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833, 527 DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013, 528 . 530 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 531 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 532 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, 533 January 2013, . 535 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 536 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 537 February 2017, . 539 [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. 540 Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated 541 Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, 542 May 2017, . 544 [RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID 545 Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378, 546 DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018, 547 . 549 8.2. Informative References 551 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 552 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 553 Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa- 554 auth-02 (work in progress), September 2019. 556 [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] 557 Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F., 558 Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., Farinacci, D., 559 Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and S. Secci, "Publish/ 560 Subscribe Functionality for LISP", draft-ietf-lisp- 561 pubsub-04 (work in progress), September 2019. 563 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 564 Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- 565 Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- 566 Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 (work in progress), 567 January 2020. 569 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 570 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 571 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20 572 (work in progress), January 2020. 574 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 576 The authors would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 577 acceptance of this draft. 579 The authors would also like to give a special thanks to Roman 580 Shaposhnik for several discussions that occured before the first 581 draft was published. 583 Appendix B. Document Change Log 585 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 587 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-05 589 o Posted March 2020. 591 o Update references and document expiry timer. 593 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-04 595 o Posted September 2019. 597 o Update references and document expiry timer. 599 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-03 601 o Posted March 2019. 603 o Introduce the Hash Mask which is used to grab common bits from a 604 registered prefix and a lookup prefix. 606 o Spec how multicast lookups are done in the pull-based mapping 607 system. 609 o Indicate the hash string includes the unicast EID mask-length and 610 multicast group and source mask-lengths. 612 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-02 614 o Posted November 2018. 616 o Changed references from peer-group to seed-group to make the 617 algorithms in this document more like how blockchain networks 618 initialize the peer-to-peer network. 620 o Added pull mechanism to compliment the push mechanism. The pull 621 mechanism could be used as a seed-group to bootstrap the push 622 mechanism. 624 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-01 626 o Posted July 2018. 628 o Document timer and reference update. 630 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-decent-00 632 o Initial draft posted January 2018. 634 Authors' Addresses 636 Dino Farinacci 637 lispers.net 638 San Jose, CA 639 USA 641 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 643 Colin Cantrell 644 Nexus 645 Tempe, AZ 646 USA 648 Email: colin@nexus.io