idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04.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 247: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 248: '...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 85 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 88 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (October 23, 2017) is 2376 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 23, 2017 5 Expires: April 26, 2018 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 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 https://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 April 26, 2018. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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-04.txt . . . . . . . 9 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt . . . . . . . 9 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02.txt . . . . . . . 9 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt . . . . . . . 9 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.txt . . . . . . . 10 66 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 1. Introduction 70 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 71 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 72 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 73 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 74 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 75 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 76 [RFC1700]. 78 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 79 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 80 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 81 LCAF Type". 83 2. Definition of Terms 85 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 86 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 88 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 89 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 90 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 91 geographic circle. 93 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 95 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 96 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 97 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 98 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 99 AFI-List Type should be used. 101 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 102 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 103 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 104 convienent. 106 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 107 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 108 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 109 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 110 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 111 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 112 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 113 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 114 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 115 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 116 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 117 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 119 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 121 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 122 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 123 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 124 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 125 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 126 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 128 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 129 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 130 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 131 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 133 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 134 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 135 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 136 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 137 Requestor. 139 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 140 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 141 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 143 Contents of Mapping Database: 144 EID= 145 RLOC= 147 EID= 148 RLOC= 150 EID= 151 RLOC= 153 Map-Request for package: 154 EID= 155 Mapping system returns: 156 RLOC= 158 Map-Request for geo-point: 159 EID= 160 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 161 EID= 162 RLOC= 164 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 165 lookup would fail. 167 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 168 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 169 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 170 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 171 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 172 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 173 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 174 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 175 stations. 177 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 178 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 179 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 180 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 181 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 182 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 183 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 184 flight path of a plane). 186 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 188 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 189 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 190 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 191 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 193 0 1 2 3 194 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 1 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 197 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 198 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 199 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 | Altitude | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | Radius | Reserved | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 | AFI = x | Address ... | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 215 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 216 Length field. 218 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 219 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 220 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 222 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 223 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 224 Latitude is south of the Equator. 226 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 227 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 228 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 230 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 231 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 232 field is unspecified. 234 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 235 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 236 in centimeters. 238 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 239 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 240 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 241 encoding is a Geo-Point. 243 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 244 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 245 is in meters. 247 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 248 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 249 protocol packets. 251 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 252 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 254 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 255 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 256 hemisphere, respectively). 258 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 259 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 261 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 262 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 264 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 265 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 267 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 268 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 269 that the location is below sea level. 271 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 272 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 273 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 274 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 275 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 276 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 278 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 280 6. Security Considerations 282 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 283 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 284 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 285 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 287 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 288 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 289 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 290 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 291 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 293 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 294 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 295 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 296 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 297 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 298 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 299 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 300 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 301 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 303 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 304 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 305 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 307 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 308 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 309 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 310 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 311 information can occur. 313 7. IANA Considerations 315 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 317 8. References 319 8.1. Normative References 321 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 322 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 325 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 326 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 327 . 329 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 330 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 331 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 332 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 333 . 335 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 336 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 337 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 338 . 340 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 341 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 342 February 2017, . 344 8.2. Informative References 346 [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 347 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 348 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 350 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 351 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 352 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 353 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 354 2017. 356 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 357 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 358 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 359 (work in progress), October 2016. 361 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 362 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 363 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-04 (work in progress), 364 September 2017. 366 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 367 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 368 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13 369 (work in progress), September 2017. 371 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 372 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 373 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 374 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 376 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 377 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 378 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 379 (work in progress), October 2017. 381 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 383 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 384 acceptance of this draft. 386 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 387 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 388 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 389 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 391 Appendix B. Document Change Log 393 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 395 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04.txt 397 o Posted October 2017. 399 o Update document timer and references. 401 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt 403 o Posted April 2017. 405 o Update document timer. 407 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02.txt 409 o Posted October 2016. 411 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 412 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 414 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 416 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt 418 o Posted October 2016. 420 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 421 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 423 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 424 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 425 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 426 message. 428 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.txt 430 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 432 Author's Address 434 Dino Farinacci 435 lispers.net 436 San Jose, CA 437 USA 439 Email: farinacci@gmail.com