idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 248: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 249: '...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 86 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 89 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (April 16, 2018) is 2195 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 April 16, 2018 5 Expires: October 18, 2018 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 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 October 18, 2018. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2018 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-05.txt . . . . . . . 9 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04.txt . . . . . . . 9 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt . . . . . . . 9 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02.txt . . . . . . . 9 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt . . . . . . . 10 66 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.txt . . . . . . . 10 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 1. Introduction 71 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 72 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 73 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 74 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 75 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 76 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 77 [RFC1700]. 79 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 80 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 81 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 82 LCAF Type". 84 2. Definition of Terms 86 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 87 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 89 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 90 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 91 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 92 geographic circle. 94 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 96 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 97 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 98 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 99 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 100 AFI-List Type should be used. 102 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 103 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 104 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 105 convienent. 107 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 108 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 109 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 110 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 111 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 112 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 113 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 114 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 115 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 116 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 117 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 118 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 120 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 122 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 123 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 124 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 125 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 126 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 127 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 129 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 130 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 131 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 132 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 134 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 135 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 136 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 137 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 138 Requestor. 140 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 141 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 142 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 144 Contents of Mapping Database: 145 EID= 146 RLOC= 148 EID= 149 RLOC= 151 EID= 152 RLOC= 154 Map-Request for package: 155 EID= 156 Mapping system returns: 157 RLOC= 159 Map-Request for geo-point: 160 EID= 161 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 162 EID= 163 RLOC= 165 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 166 lookup would fail. 168 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 169 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 170 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 171 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 172 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 173 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 174 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 175 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 176 stations. 178 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 179 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 180 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 181 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 182 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 183 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 184 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 185 flight path of a plane). 187 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 189 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 190 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 191 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 192 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 194 0 1 2 3 195 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 1 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | Altitude | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Radius | Reserved | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | AFI = x | Address ... | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 216 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 217 Length field. 219 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 220 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 221 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 223 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 224 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 225 Latitude is south of the Equator. 227 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 228 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 229 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 231 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 232 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 233 field is unspecified. 235 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 236 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 237 in centimeters. 239 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 240 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 241 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 242 encoding is a Geo-Point. 244 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 245 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 246 is in meters. 248 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 249 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 250 protocol packets. 252 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 253 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 255 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 256 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 257 hemisphere, respectively). 259 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 260 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 262 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 263 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 265 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 266 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 268 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 269 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 270 that the location is below sea level. 272 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 273 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 274 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 275 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 276 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 277 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 279 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 281 6. Security Considerations 283 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 284 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 285 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 286 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 288 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 289 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 290 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 291 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 292 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 294 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 295 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 296 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 297 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 298 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 299 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 300 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 301 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 302 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 304 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 305 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 306 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 308 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 309 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 310 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 311 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 312 information can occur. 314 7. IANA Considerations 316 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 318 8. References 320 8.1. Normative References 322 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 323 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 326 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 327 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 328 . 330 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 331 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 332 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 333 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 334 . 336 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 337 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 338 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 339 . 341 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 342 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 343 February 2017, . 345 8.2. Informative References 347 [AFI] IANA, "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 348 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 349 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 351 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 352 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 353 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 354 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 355 2017. 357 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 358 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 359 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 360 (work in progress), October 2016. 362 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 363 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 364 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-05 (work in progress), March 365 2018. 367 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 368 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 369 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14 370 (work in progress), October 2017. 372 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 373 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 374 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 375 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 377 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 378 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 379 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 380 (work in progress), October 2017. 382 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 384 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 385 acceptance of this draft. 387 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 388 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 389 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 390 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 392 Appendix B. Document Change Log 394 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 396 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05.txt 398 o Posted April 2018. 400 o Update document timer and references. 402 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04.txt 404 o Posted October 2017. 406 o Update document timer and references. 408 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt 410 o Posted April 2017. 412 o Update document timer. 414 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02.txt 416 o Posted October 2016. 418 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 419 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 421 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 423 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt 425 o Posted October 2016. 427 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 428 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 430 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 431 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 432 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 433 message. 435 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.txt 437 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 439 Author's Address 441 Dino Farinacci 442 lispers.net 443 San Jose, CA 444 USA 446 Email: farinacci@gmail.com