idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09.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 252: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 253: '...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 90 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 93 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (April 9, 2020) is 1471 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 9, 2020 5 Expires: October 11, 2020 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09 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 11, 2020. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2020 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-09 . . . . . . . . . 10 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 . . . . . . . . . 10 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 . . . . . . . . . 10 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . 10 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . 10 66 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . 11 67 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . 11 68 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . 11 69 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . 11 70 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . 11 71 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 1. Introduction 75 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 76 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 77 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 78 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 79 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 80 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 81 [RFC1700]. 83 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 84 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 85 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 86 LCAF Type". 88 2. Definition of Terms 90 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 91 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 93 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 94 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 95 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 96 geographic circle. 98 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 100 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 101 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 102 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 103 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 104 AFI-List Type should be used. 106 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 107 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 108 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 109 convienent. 111 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 112 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 113 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 114 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 115 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 116 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 117 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 118 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 119 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 120 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 121 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 122 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 124 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 126 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 127 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 128 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 129 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 130 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 131 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 133 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 134 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 135 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 136 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 138 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 139 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 140 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 141 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 142 Requestor. 144 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 145 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 146 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 148 Contents of Mapping Database: 149 EID= 150 RLOC= 152 EID= 153 RLOC= 155 EID= 156 RLOC= 158 Map-Request for package: 159 EID= 160 Mapping system returns: 161 RLOC= 163 Map-Request for geo-point: 164 EID= 165 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 166 EID= 167 RLOC= 169 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 170 lookup would fail. 172 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 173 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 174 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 175 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 176 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 177 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 178 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 179 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 180 stations. 182 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 183 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 184 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 185 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 186 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 187 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 188 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 189 flight path of a plane). 191 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 193 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 194 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 195 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 196 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 198 0 1 2 3 199 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 1 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | Altitude | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | Radius | Reserved | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 | AFI = x | Address ... | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 218 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 220 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 221 Length field. 223 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 224 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 225 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 227 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 228 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 229 Latitude is south of the Equator. 231 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 232 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 233 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 235 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 236 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 237 field is unspecified. 239 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 240 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 241 in centimeters. 243 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 244 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 245 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 246 encoding is a Geo-Point. 248 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 249 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 250 is in meters. 252 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 253 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 254 protocol packets. 256 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 257 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 259 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 260 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 261 hemisphere, respectively). 263 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 264 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 266 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 267 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 269 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 270 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 272 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 273 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 274 that the location is below sea level. 276 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 277 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 278 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 279 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 280 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 281 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 283 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 285 6. Security Considerations 287 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 288 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 289 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 290 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 292 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 293 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 294 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 295 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 296 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 298 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 299 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 300 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 301 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 302 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 303 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 304 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 305 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 306 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 308 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 309 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 310 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 312 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 313 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 314 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 315 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 316 information can occur. 318 7. IANA Considerations 320 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 322 8. References 324 8.1. Normative References 326 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 327 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 330 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 331 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 332 . 334 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 335 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 336 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 337 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 338 . 340 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 341 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 342 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 343 . 345 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 346 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 347 February 2017, . 349 8.2. Informative References 351 [AFI] "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 352 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 353 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 355 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 356 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 357 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 358 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 359 2017. 361 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 362 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 363 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 364 (work in progress), October 2016. 366 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 367 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 368 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-09 (work in progress), March 369 2020. 371 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 372 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 373 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20 374 (work in progress), January 2020. 376 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 377 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 378 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 379 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 381 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 382 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 383 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 384 (work in progress), October 2017. 386 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 388 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 389 acceptance of this draft. 391 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 392 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 393 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 394 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 396 Appendix B. Document Change Log 398 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 400 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09 402 o Posted April 2020. 404 o Update document timer and references. 406 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 408 o Posted October 2019. 410 o Update document timer and references. 412 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 414 o Posted April 2019. 416 o Update document timer and references. 418 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 420 o Posted October 2018. 422 o Update document timer and references. 424 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 426 o Posted April 2018. 428 o Update document timer and references. 430 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 432 o Posted October 2017. 434 o Update document timer and references. 436 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 438 o Posted April 2017. 440 o Update document timer. 442 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 444 o Posted October 2016. 446 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 447 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 449 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 451 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 453 o Posted October 2016. 455 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 456 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 458 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 459 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 460 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 461 message. 463 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 465 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 467 Author's Address 469 Dino Farinacci 470 lispers.net 471 San Jose, CA 472 USA 474 Email: farinacci@gmail.com