idnits 2.17.1 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11.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 254: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 255: '...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 92 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 95 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (March 29, 2021) is 1117 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RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-22 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 March 29, 2021 5 Expires: September 30, 2021 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11 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 September 30, 2021. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2021 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-11 . . . . . . . . . 10 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10 . . . . . . . . . 10 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09 . . . . . . . . . 10 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 . . . . . . . . . 10 65 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 . . . . . . . . . 10 66 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 . . . . . . . . . 11 67 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 . . . . . . . . . 11 68 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 . . . . . . . . . 11 69 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 . . . . . . . . . 11 70 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 . . . . . . . . . 11 71 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 . . . . . . . . . 11 72 B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 . . . . . . . . . 12 73 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 1. Introduction 77 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 78 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 79 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 80 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 81 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 82 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 83 [RFC1700]. 85 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 86 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 87 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 88 LCAF Type". 90 2. Definition of Terms 92 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 93 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 95 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 96 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 97 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 98 geographic circle. 100 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 102 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 103 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 104 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 105 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 106 AFI-List Type should be used. 108 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 109 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 110 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 111 convienent. 113 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 114 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 115 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 116 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 117 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 118 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 119 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 120 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 121 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 122 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 123 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 124 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 126 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 128 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 129 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 130 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 131 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 132 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 133 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 135 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 136 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 137 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 138 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 140 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 141 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 142 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 143 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 144 Requestor. 146 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 147 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 148 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 150 Contents of Mapping Database: 151 EID= 152 RLOC= 154 EID= 155 RLOC= 157 EID= 158 RLOC= 160 Map-Request for package: 161 EID= 162 Mapping system returns: 163 RLOC= 165 Map-Request for geo-point: 166 EID= 167 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 168 EID= 169 RLOC= 171 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 172 lookup would fail. 174 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 175 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 176 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 177 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 178 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 179 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 180 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 181 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 182 stations. 184 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 185 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 186 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 187 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 188 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 189 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 190 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 191 flight path of a plane). 193 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 195 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 196 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 197 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 198 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 200 0 1 2 3 201 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 1 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | Altitude | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 | Radius | Reserved | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 | AFI = x | Address ... | 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 220 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 222 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 223 Length field. 225 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 226 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 227 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 229 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 230 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 231 Latitude is south of the Equator. 233 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 234 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 235 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 237 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 238 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 239 field is unspecified. 241 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 242 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 243 in centimeters. 245 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 246 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 247 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 248 encoding is a Geo-Point. 250 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 251 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 252 is in meters. 254 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 255 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 256 protocol packets. 258 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 259 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 261 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 262 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 263 hemisphere, respectively). 265 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 266 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 268 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 269 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 271 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 272 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 274 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 275 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 276 that the location is below sea level. 278 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 279 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 280 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 281 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 282 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 283 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 285 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 287 6. Security Considerations 289 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 290 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 291 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 292 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 294 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 295 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 296 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 297 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 298 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 300 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 301 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 302 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 303 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 304 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 305 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 306 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 307 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 308 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 310 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 311 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 312 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 314 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 315 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 316 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 317 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 318 information can occur. 320 7. IANA Considerations 322 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 324 8. References 326 8.1. Normative References 328 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 329 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 332 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 333 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 334 . 336 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 337 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 338 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 339 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 340 . 342 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 343 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 344 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 345 . 347 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 348 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 349 February 2017, . 351 8.2. Informative References 353 [AFI] "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 354 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 355 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 357 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 358 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 359 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 360 acee-ospf-geo-location-05 (work in progress), October 361 2017. 363 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 364 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 365 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 366 (work in progress), October 2016. 368 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 369 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 370 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-11 (work in progress), 371 November 2020. 373 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 374 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 375 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-22 376 (work in progress), January 2021. 378 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 379 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 380 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 381 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 383 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 384 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 385 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-04 386 (work in progress), October 2017. 388 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 390 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 391 acceptance of this draft. 393 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 394 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 395 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 396 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 398 Appendix B. Document Change Log 400 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 402 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-11 404 o Posted March 2021. 406 o Update document timer and references. 408 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-10 410 o Posted October 2020. 412 o Update document timer and references. 414 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-09 416 o Posted April 2020. 418 o Update document timer and references. 420 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-08 422 o Posted October 2019. 424 o Update document timer and references. 426 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-07 428 o Posted April 2019. 430 o Update document timer and references. 432 B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-06 434 o Posted October 2018. 436 o Update document timer and references. 438 B.7. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-05 440 o Posted April 2018. 442 o Update document timer and references. 444 B.8. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-04 446 o Posted October 2017. 448 o Update document timer and references. 450 B.9. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 452 o Posted April 2017. 454 o Update document timer. 456 B.10. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 458 o Posted October 2016. 460 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 461 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 463 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 465 B.11. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01 467 o Posted October 2016. 469 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 470 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 472 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 473 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 474 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 475 message. 477 B.12. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00 479 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 481 Author's Address 483 Dino Farinacci 484 lispers.net 485 San Jose, CA 486 USA 488 Email: farinacci@gmail.com