idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08.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 251: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 252: '...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 89 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 92 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (October 7, 2019) is 1653 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-08 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-19 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 7, 2019 5 Expires: April 9, 2020 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 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 9, 2020. 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 . . . . . . . . 4 53 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 56 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 57 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 58 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 60 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 61 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 . . . . . . . . . 10 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 . . . . . . . . . 10 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . 10 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . 10 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . 10 66 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . 11 67 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . 11 68 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . 11 69 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . 11 70 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 1. Introduction 74 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 75 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 76 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 77 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 78 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 79 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 80 [RFC1700]. 82 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 83 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 84 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 85 LCAF Type". 87 2. Definition of Terms 89 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 90 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 92 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 93 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 94 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 95 geographic circle. 97 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 99 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 100 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 101 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 102 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 103 AFI-List Type should be used. 105 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 106 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 107 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 108 convienent. 110 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 111 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 112 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 113 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 114 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 115 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 116 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 117 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 118 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 119 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 120 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 121 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 123 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 125 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 126 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 127 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 128 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 129 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 130 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 132 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 133 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 134 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 135 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 137 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 138 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 139 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 140 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 141 Requestor. 143 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 144 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 145 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 147 Contents of Mapping Database: 148 EID= 149 RLOC= 151 EID= 152 RLOC= 154 EID= 155 RLOC= 157 Map-Request for package: 158 EID= 159 Mapping system returns: 160 RLOC= 162 Map-Request for geo-point: 163 EID= 164 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 165 EID= 166 RLOC= 168 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 169 lookup would fail. 171 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 172 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 173 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 174 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 175 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 176 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 177 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 178 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 179 stations. 181 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 182 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 183 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 184 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 185 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 186 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 187 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 188 flight path of a plane). 190 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 192 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 193 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 194 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 195 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 197 0 1 2 3 198 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 1 199 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 | Altitude | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | Radius | Reserved | 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 | AFI = x | Address ... | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 219 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 220 Length field. 222 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 223 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 224 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 226 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 227 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 228 Latitude is south of the Equator. 230 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 231 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 232 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 234 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 235 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 236 field is unspecified. 238 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 239 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 240 in centimeters. 242 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 243 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 244 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 245 encoding is a Geo-Point. 247 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 248 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 249 is in meters. 251 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 252 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 253 protocol packets. 255 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 256 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 258 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 259 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 260 hemisphere, respectively). 262 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 263 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 265 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 266 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 268 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 269 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 271 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 272 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 273 that the location is below sea level. 275 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 276 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 277 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 278 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 279 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 280 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 282 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 284 6. Security Considerations 286 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 287 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 288 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 289 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 291 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 292 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 293 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 294 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 295 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 297 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 298 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 299 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 300 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 301 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 302 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 303 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 304 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 305 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 307 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 308 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 309 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 311 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 312 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 313 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 314 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 315 information can occur. 317 7. IANA Considerations 319 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 321 8. References 323 8.1. Normative References 325 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 326 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 329 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 330 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 331 . 333 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 334 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 335 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 336 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 337 . 339 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 340 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 341 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 342 . 344 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 345 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 346 February 2017, . 348 8.2. Informative References 350 [AFI] "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 351 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 352 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 354 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 355 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 356 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 357 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 358 2017. 360 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 361 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 362 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 363 (work in progress), October 2016. 365 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 366 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 367 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-08 (work in progress), 368 September 2019. 370 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 371 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 372 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-19 373 (work in progress), July 2019. 375 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 376 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 377 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 378 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 380 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 381 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 382 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 383 (work in progress), October 2017. 385 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 387 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 388 acceptance of this draft. 390 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 391 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 392 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 393 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 395 Appendix B. Document Change Log 397 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 399 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 401 o Posted October 2019. 403 o Update document timer and references. 405 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 407 o Posted April 2019. 409 o Update document timer and references. 411 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 413 o Posted October 2018. 415 o Update document timer and references. 417 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 419 o Posted April 2018. 421 o Update document timer and references. 423 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 425 o Posted October 2017. 427 o Update document timer and references. 429 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 431 o Posted April 2017. 433 o Update document timer. 435 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 437 o Posted October 2016. 439 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 440 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 442 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 444 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 446 o Posted October 2016. 448 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 449 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 451 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 452 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 453 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 454 message. 456 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 458 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 460 Author's Address 462 Dino Farinacci 463 lispers.net 464 San Jose, CA 465 USA 467 Email: farinacci@gmail.com