idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07.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 250: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 251: '...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 88 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 91 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (April 11, 2019) is 1842 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 11, 2019 5 Expires: October 13, 2019 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 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 13, 2019. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2019 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-07 . . . . . . . . . 9 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . 9 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . 9 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . 9 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . 9 66 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . 10 67 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . 10 68 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . 10 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 1. Introduction 73 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 74 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 75 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 76 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 77 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 78 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 79 [RFC1700]. 81 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 82 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 83 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 84 LCAF Type". 86 2. Definition of Terms 88 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 89 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 91 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 92 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 93 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 94 geographic circle. 96 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 98 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 99 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 100 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 101 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 102 AFI-List Type should be used. 104 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 105 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 106 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 107 convienent. 109 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 110 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 111 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 112 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 113 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 114 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 115 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 116 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 117 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 118 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 119 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 120 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 122 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 124 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 125 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 126 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 127 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 128 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 129 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 131 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 132 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 133 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 134 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 136 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 137 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 138 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 139 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 140 Requestor. 142 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 143 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 144 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 146 Contents of Mapping Database: 147 EID= 148 RLOC= 150 EID= 151 RLOC= 153 EID= 154 RLOC= 156 Map-Request for package: 157 EID= 158 Mapping system returns: 159 RLOC= 161 Map-Request for geo-point: 162 EID= 163 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 164 EID= 165 RLOC= 167 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 168 lookup would fail. 170 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 171 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 172 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 173 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 174 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 175 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 176 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 177 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 178 stations. 180 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 181 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 182 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 183 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 184 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 185 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 186 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 187 flight path of a plane). 189 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 191 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 192 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 193 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 194 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 196 0 1 2 3 197 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 1 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Altitude | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | Radius | Reserved | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | AFI = x | Address ... | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 218 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 219 Length field. 221 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 222 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 223 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 225 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 226 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 227 Latitude is south of the Equator. 229 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 230 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 231 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 233 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 234 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 235 field is unspecified. 237 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 238 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 239 in centimeters. 241 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 242 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 243 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 244 encoding is a Geo-Point. 246 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 247 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 248 is in meters. 250 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 251 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 252 protocol packets. 254 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 255 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 257 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 258 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 259 hemisphere, respectively). 261 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 262 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 264 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 265 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 267 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 268 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 270 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 271 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 272 that the location is below sea level. 274 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 275 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 276 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 277 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 278 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 279 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 281 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 283 6. Security Considerations 285 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 286 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 287 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 288 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 290 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 291 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 292 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 293 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 294 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 296 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 297 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 298 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 299 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 300 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 301 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 302 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 303 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 304 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 306 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 307 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 308 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 310 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 311 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 312 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 313 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 314 information can occur. 316 7. IANA Considerations 318 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 320 8. References 322 8.1. Normative References 324 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 325 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 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 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 344 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 345 February 2017, . 347 8.2. Informative References 349 [AFI] "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 350 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 351 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 353 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 354 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 355 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 356 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 357 2017. 359 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 360 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 361 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 362 (work in progress), October 2016. 364 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 365 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 366 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-07 (work in progress), March 367 2019. 369 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 370 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 371 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17 372 (work in progress), November 2018. 374 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 375 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 376 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 377 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 379 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 380 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 381 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 382 (work in progress), October 2017. 384 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 386 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 387 acceptance of this draft. 389 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 390 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 391 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 392 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 394 Appendix B. Document Change Log 396 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 398 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 400 o Posted April 2019. 402 o Update document timer and references. 404 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 406 o Posted October 2018. 408 o Update document timer and references. 410 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 412 o Posted April 2018. 414 o Update document timer and references. 416 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 418 o Posted October 2017. 420 o Update document timer and references. 422 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 424 o Posted April 2017. 426 o Update document timer. 428 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 430 o Posted October 2016. 432 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 433 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 435 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 437 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 439 o Posted October 2016. 441 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 442 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 444 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 445 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 446 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 447 message. 449 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 451 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 453 Author's Address 455 Dino Farinacci 456 lispers.net 457 San Jose, CA 458 USA 460 Email: farinacci@gmail.com