idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 79 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 82 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (April 14, 2016) is 2928 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement-00 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 April 14, 2016 5 Expires: October 16, 2016 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 10 Abstract 12 This draft describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the LISP 13 Architecture and Protocols. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 2016. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records . . . . . . . . 3 53 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 1. Introduction 64 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 65 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 66 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 67 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 68 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 69 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 70 [RFC1700]. 72 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 73 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 74 encoding format is specified in [LCAF] as the "Geo-Coordinates LCAF 75 Type". 77 2. Definition of Terms 79 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 80 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 82 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 83 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 84 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 85 geographic circle. 87 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 89 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 90 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 91 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 92 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 93 AFI-List Type should be used. 95 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 96 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 97 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 98 convienent. 100 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 101 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 102 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 103 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 104 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 105 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 106 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 107 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 108 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 109 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 110 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 111 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 113 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 115 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 116 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 117 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 118 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 119 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 120 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 122 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name [DIST-NAME] to be 123 registered as an EID with an RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For 124 example EID="San Francisco", with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in 125 the mapping system. 127 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 128 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 129 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 130 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 131 Requestor. 133 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 134 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 135 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 137 Contents of Mapping Database: 138 EID= 139 RLOC= 141 EID= 142 RLOC= 144 EID= 145 RLOC= 147 Map-Request for package: 148 EID= 149 Mapping system returns: 150 RLOC= 152 Map-Request for geo-point: 153 EID= 154 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 155 EID= 156 RLOC= 158 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 159 lookup would fail. 161 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 162 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 163 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 164 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 165 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 166 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 167 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 168 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 169 stations. 171 When assigning EIDs to vehicles [V2I], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 172 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 173 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 174 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 175 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 176 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 177 flight path of a plane). 179 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 181 0 1 2 3 182 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 1 183 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 184 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 185 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 186 | Type = 5 | Radius-high | 12 + n | 187 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 |N| Latitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 |E| Longitude Degrees | Minutes | Seconds | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | Radius-low | Altitude | 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 194 | AFI = x | Address ... | 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 This draft proposes to change the "Rsvd2" field from [LCAF] to 198 "Radius-high" and take 8 bits from "Altitude" for Radius-low to make 199 up a 16-bit value. When "Radius" is 0 the Geo-Coordinate encoding is 200 a Geo-Point. When non-zero, it is the radius of the circle in 201 kilometers. The maximum value is 65535 kilometers which is almost 202 twice the distance of the earth's circumference. 204 6. Security Considerations 206 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 207 carefully to not violate and privacy concerns about physical 208 location. 210 7. IANA Considerations 212 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 214 8. References 216 8.1. Normative References 218 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 219 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 222 [LCAF] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 223 Address Format", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt (work in 224 progress). 226 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 227 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 228 . 230 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 231 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 232 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 233 . 235 8.2. Informative References 237 [DIST-NAME] 238 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 239 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-00.txt (work in progress). 241 [V2I] Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 242 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 243 statement-00 (work in progress). 245 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 247 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 248 acceptance of this draft. 250 Author's Address 252 Dino Farinacci 253 lispers.net 254 San Jose, CA 255 USA 257 Email: farinacci@gmail.com