idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 245: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 246: '...ocol packets and MUST be ignored when ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 83 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 86 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (October 28, 2016) is 2729 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for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-19 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-acee-ospf-geo-location-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-01 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 October 28, 2016 5 Expires: May 1, 2017 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 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 May 1, 2017. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 55 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo--02.txt . . . . . . . 9 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo--01.txt . . . . . . . 9 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo--00.txt . . . . . . . 10 64 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 1. Introduction 68 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 69 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 70 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 71 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 72 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 73 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 74 [RFC1700]. 76 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 77 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 78 encoding format is specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf] as the "Geo- 79 Coordinates LCAF Type". 81 2. Definition of Terms 83 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 84 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 86 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 87 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 88 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 89 geographic circle. 91 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 93 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 94 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 95 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 96 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 97 AFI-List Type should be used. 99 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 100 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 101 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 102 convienent. 104 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 105 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 106 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 107 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 108 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 109 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 110 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 111 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 112 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 113 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 114 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 115 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 117 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 119 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 120 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 121 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 122 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 123 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 124 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 126 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 127 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 128 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 129 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 131 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 132 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 133 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 134 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 135 Requestor. 137 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 138 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 139 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 141 Contents of Mapping Database: 142 EID= 143 RLOC= 145 EID= 146 RLOC= 148 EID= 149 RLOC= 151 Map-Request for package: 152 EID= 153 Mapping system returns: 154 RLOC= 156 Map-Request for geo-point: 157 EID= 158 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 159 EID= 160 RLOC= 162 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 163 lookup would fail. 165 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 166 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 167 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 168 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 169 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 170 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 171 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 172 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 173 stations. 175 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 176 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 177 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 178 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 179 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 180 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 181 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 182 flight path of a plane). 184 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 186 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 187 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 188 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 189 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 191 0 1 2 3 192 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 1 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 194 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 197 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 198 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 199 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 | Altitude | 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 | Radius | Reserved | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | AFI = x | Address ... | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf] for details. 213 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 214 Length field. 216 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 217 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 218 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 220 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 221 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 222 Latitude is south of the Equator. 224 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 225 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 226 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 228 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 229 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 230 field is unspecified. 232 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 233 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 234 in centimeters. 236 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 237 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 238 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 239 encoding is a Geo-Point. 241 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 242 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 243 is in meters. 245 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 246 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 247 protocol packets. 249 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 250 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 252 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 253 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 254 hemisphere, respectively). 256 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 257 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 259 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 260 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 262 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 263 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 265 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 266 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 267 that the location is below sea level. 269 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 270 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 271 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 272 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 273 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 274 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 276 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]. 278 6. Security Considerations 280 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 281 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 282 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 283 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 285 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 286 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 287 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 288 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 289 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 291 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 292 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 293 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 294 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 295 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 296 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 297 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 298 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 299 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 301 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 302 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 303 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 305 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 306 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 307 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 308 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 309 information can occur. 311 7. IANA Considerations 313 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 315 8. References 317 8.1. Normative References 319 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 320 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 323 [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf] 324 Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 325 Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-19 (work in 326 progress), October 2016. 328 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 329 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 330 . 332 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 333 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 334 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 335 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 336 . 338 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 339 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 340 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 341 . 343 8.2. Informative References 345 [AFI] IANA, , "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 346 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 347 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 349 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 350 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 351 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 352 acee-ospf-geo-location-02 (work in progress), October 353 2016. 355 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 356 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 357 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-01 358 (work in progress), March 2016. 360 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 361 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 362 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-02 (work in progress), 363 October 2016. 365 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 366 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 367 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-11 368 (work in progress), October 2016. 370 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 371 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 372 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 373 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 375 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 376 Shen, N., Chen, E., and A. Lindem, "Carrying Geo 377 Coordinates Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo- 378 coordinates-01 (work in progress), March 2016. 380 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 382 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 383 acceptance of this draft. 385 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 386 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 387 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 388 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 390 Appendix B. Document Change Log 392 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 394 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo--02.txt 396 o Posted October 2016. 398 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 399 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 401 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 403 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo--01.txt 405 o Posted October 2016. 407 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 408 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 410 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 411 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 412 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 413 message. 415 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo--00.txt 417 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 419 Author's Address 421 Dino Farinacci 422 lispers.net 423 San Jose, CA 424 USA 426 Email: farinacci@gmail.com