idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 19, 2018) is 2105 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon 5 Expires: January 20, 2019 Broadcom 6 P. Agarwal 7 Innovium 8 D. Lewis 9 M. Smith 10 Cisco 11 July 19, 2018 13 LISP Generic Protocol Extension 14 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04 16 Abstract 18 This document describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol 19 (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support multi- 20 protocol encapsulation. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 20, 2019. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR 63 Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 4.2. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 1. Introduction 76 LISP Data-Plane, as defined in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines 77 an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth 78 referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP 79 transport. 81 The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being 82 encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only 83 IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348] 84 (which defines a similar header format to LISP), are used to 85 encapsulate L2 protocols such as Ethernet. 87 This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in 88 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling 89 the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all 90 the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments. 92 A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the 93 presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field, 94 when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing 95 and map-versioning features. The two features are still available, 96 albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version. 98 1.1. Conventions 100 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 101 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 102 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 104 1.2. Definition of Terms 106 This document uses terms already defined in 107 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 109 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions 111 As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol 112 identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because 113 of this, LISP is limited to carry IP payloads. 115 The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags 116 (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an 117 instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility 118 to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is 119 the last reserved bit in the LISP header. 121 0 1 2 3 122 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 1 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 LISP Header 131 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) 133 This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in 134 order to support multi-protocol encapsulation: 136 P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit 137 MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next 138 protocol field. 140 P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined 141 in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit 142 because this flag bit is currently unallocated. 144 Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to 145 carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the 146 protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. 148 LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce, 149 an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning 150 [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]. These are all optional capabilities that 151 are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and the V 152 bit respectively. 154 When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the 155 middle 16 bits. 157 When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is 158 the middle 16 bits. 160 When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, 161 the middle 16-bits are set to 0. 163 This document defines the following Next Protocol values: 165 0x1 : IPv4 167 0x2 : IPv6 169 0x3 : Ethernet 171 0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] 173 0 1 2 3 174 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 1 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | 177 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 181 LISP-GPE Header 183 4. Backward Compatibility 185 LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. 187 The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane 188 capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data- 189 Planes" LCAF type defined in [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be 190 used, including static xTR configuration, but are out of the scope of 191 this document. 193 When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P 194 bit MUST be set to 0. 196 A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets to a non LISP- 197 GPE capable router. 199 4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities 201 The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the 202 "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a 203 Map-Reply to encode the encapsularion formats supported by a given 204 RLOC. In this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to 205 support LISP-GPE on a given RLOC of that ETR. 207 The "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as defined in [RFC8060], has a 208 Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations 25-bit field. This document 209 defines the least significant bit of that field as g bit (bit 24 in 210 the third 32-bit word of the LCAF). 212 0 1 2 3 213 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 1 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 | Type = 16 | Rsvd2 | Length | 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 | Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations |g|U|G|N|v|V|l|L| 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 | AFI = x | Address ... | 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type 226 g Bit: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next 227 longword can accept LISP-GPE (Generic Protocol Extension) 228 encapsulation using destination UDP port 4341 230 All other fields: As defined in [RFC8060] 232 4.2. Type of Service 234 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 235 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be 236 mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in 237 the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' 238 field 240 4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) 242 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 243 header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped 244 to, or used to determine the LISP Instance ID field. 246 5. IANA Considerations 248 IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol". 249 These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are 250 defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards 251 Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do 252 not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols. 254 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 255 | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | 256 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 257 | 0 | Reserved | This Document | 258 | 1 | IPv4 | This Document | 259 | 2 | IPv6 | This Document | 260 | 3 | Ethernet | This Document | 261 | 4 | NSH | This Document | 262 | 5..255 | Unassigned | | 263 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 265 6. Security Considerations 267 LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security 268 considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835]. 270 With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and 271 traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload 272 encapsulated. 274 7. Acknowledgements and Contributors 276 A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and 277 detailed review. 279 This WG document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; the following 280 are its coauthors and contributors along with their respective 281 affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of this document 282 would like to thank and recognize them and their contributions. 283 These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable concepts and 284 content for this document's creation. 286 o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc. 288 o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc. 290 o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc. 292 o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc. 294 o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc. 296 o Larry Kreeger 298 o John Lemon, Broadcom 300 o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium 302 8. References 304 8.1. Normative References 306 [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] 307 Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 308 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- 309 lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018. 311 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 312 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 313 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 314 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 (work in progress), 315 July 2018. 317 [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 318 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area 319 networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, 320 DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, 321 . 324 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 325 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 326 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 329 8.2. Informative References 331 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 332 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 333 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 334 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 335 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 336 . 338 [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 339 Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, 340 DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, . 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 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 348 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 349 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 350 . 352 [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., 353 "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, 354 DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, . 357 Authors' Addresses 359 Fabio Maino (editor) 360 Cisco Systems 361 San Jose, CA 95134 362 USA 364 Email: fmaino@cisco.com 365 John Lemon 366 Broadcom 367 270 Innovation Drive 368 San Jose, CA 95134 369 USA 371 Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com 373 Puneet Agarwal 374 Innovium 375 USA 377 Email: puneet@acm.org 379 Darrel Lewis 380 Cisco Systems 382 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 384 Michael Smith 385 Cisco Systems 387 Email: michsmit@cisco.com