idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10.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 253: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 254: '...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 91 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 94 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (October 4, 2020) is 1297 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-10 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-21 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 4, 2020 5 Expires: April 7, 2021 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10 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 7, 2021. 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-10 . . . . . . . . . 10 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09 . . . . . . . . . 10 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 . . . . . . . . . 10 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 . . . . . . . . . 10 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . 10 66 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . 11 67 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . 11 68 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . 11 69 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . 11 70 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . 11 71 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . 11 72 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 1. Introduction 76 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 77 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 78 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 79 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 80 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 81 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 82 [RFC1700]. 84 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 85 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 86 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 87 LCAF Type". 89 2. Definition of Terms 91 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 92 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 94 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 95 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 96 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 97 geographic circle. 99 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 101 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 102 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 103 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 104 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 105 AFI-List Type should be used. 107 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 108 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 109 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 110 convienent. 112 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 113 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 114 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 115 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 116 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 117 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 118 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 119 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 120 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 121 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 122 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 123 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 125 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 127 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 128 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 129 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 130 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 131 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 132 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 134 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 135 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 136 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 137 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 139 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 140 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 141 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 142 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 143 Requestor. 145 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 146 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 147 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 149 Contents of Mapping Database: 150 EID= 151 RLOC= 153 EID= 154 RLOC= 156 EID= 157 RLOC= 159 Map-Request for package: 160 EID= 161 Mapping system returns: 162 RLOC= 164 Map-Request for geo-point: 165 EID= 166 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 167 EID= 168 RLOC= 170 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 171 lookup would fail. 173 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 174 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 175 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 176 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 177 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 178 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 179 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 180 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 181 stations. 183 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 184 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 185 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 186 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 187 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 188 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 189 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 190 flight path of a plane). 192 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 194 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 195 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 196 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 197 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 199 0 1 2 3 200 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 1 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | Altitude | 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 | Radius | Reserved | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 | AFI = x | Address ... | 217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 221 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 222 Length field. 224 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 225 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 226 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 228 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 229 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 230 Latitude is south of the Equator. 232 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 233 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 234 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 236 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 237 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 238 field is unspecified. 240 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 241 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 242 in centimeters. 244 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 245 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 246 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 247 encoding is a Geo-Point. 249 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 250 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 251 is in meters. 253 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 254 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 255 protocol packets. 257 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 258 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 260 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 261 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 262 hemisphere, respectively). 264 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 265 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 267 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 268 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 270 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 271 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 273 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 274 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 275 that the location is below sea level. 277 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 278 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 279 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 280 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 281 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 282 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 284 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 286 6. Security Considerations 288 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 289 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 290 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 291 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 293 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 294 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 295 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 296 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 297 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 299 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 300 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 301 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 302 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 303 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 304 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 305 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 306 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 307 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 309 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 310 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 311 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 313 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 314 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 315 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 316 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 317 information can occur. 319 7. IANA Considerations 321 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 323 8. References 325 8.1. Normative References 327 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 328 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 331 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 332 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 333 . 335 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 336 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 337 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 338 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 339 . 341 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 342 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 343 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 344 . 346 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 347 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 348 February 2017, . 350 8.2. Informative References 352 [AFI] "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 353 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 354 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 356 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 357 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 358 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 359 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 360 2017. 362 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 363 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 364 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 365 (work in progress), October 2016. 367 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 368 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 369 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-10 (work in progress), August 370 2020. 372 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 373 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 374 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-21 375 (work in progress), July 2020. 377 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 378 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 379 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 380 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 382 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 383 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 384 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 385 (work in progress), October 2017. 387 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 389 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 390 acceptance of this draft. 392 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 393 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 394 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 395 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 397 Appendix B. Document Change Log 399 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 401 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10 403 o Posted October 2020. 405 o Update document timer and references. 407 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09 409 o Posted April 2020. 411 o Update document timer and references. 413 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 415 o Posted October 2019. 417 o Update document timer and references. 419 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 421 o Posted April 2019. 423 o Update document timer and references. 425 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 427 o Posted October 2018. 429 o Update document timer and references. 431 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 433 o Posted April 2018. 435 o Update document timer and references. 437 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 439 o Posted October 2017. 441 o Update document timer and references. 443 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 445 o Posted April 2017. 447 o Update document timer. 449 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 451 o Posted October 2016. 453 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 454 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 456 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 458 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 460 o Posted October 2016. 462 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 463 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 465 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 466 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 467 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 468 message. 470 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 472 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 474 Author's Address 475 Dino Farinacci 476 lispers.net 477 San Jose, CA 478 USA 480 Email: farinacci@gmail.com