idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07.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 (October 18, 2019) is 1642 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). 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: April 20, 2020 Broadcom 6 P. Agarwal 7 Innovium 8 D. Lewis 9 M. Smith 10 Cisco 11 October 18, 2019 13 LISP Generic Protocol Extension 14 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07 16 Abstract 18 This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation 19 Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to 20 support multi-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 April 20, 2020. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2019 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) . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR 69 Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 12 73 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 76 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 80 1. Introduction 82 The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It 83 specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets 84 (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer 85 UDP/IP transport. 87 The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being 88 encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only 89 IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably Virtual eXtensible 90 Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] (which defines a similar header 91 format to LISP), are used to encapsulate Layer-2 (L2) protocols such 92 as Ethernet. 94 This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in 95 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling 96 the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all 97 the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments. 99 A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the 100 presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field, 101 when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing 102 and map-versioning features. The two features are still available, 103 albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version. 105 Since all of the reserved bits of the LISP Data-Plane header have 106 been allocated, LISP-GPE can also be used to extend the LISP Data- 107 Plane header by defining Next Protocol "shim" headers that implements 108 new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. For 109 example, the use of the Group-Based Policy (GBP) header 110 [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] or of the In-situ Operations, 111 Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) header 112 [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] with LISP-GPE, can be considered 113 an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for Group-Based Policy 114 functionalities or IOAM metadata. 116 1.1. Conventions 118 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 119 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 120 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 121 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 122 capitals, as shown here. 124 1.2. Definition of Terms 126 This document uses terms already defined in 127 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 129 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions 131 As described in Section 1, the LISP header has no protocol identifier 132 that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because of this, 133 LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads. 135 The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags 136 (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an 137 instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility 138 to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is 139 the last reserved bit in the LISP header. 141 0 1 2 3 142 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 1 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 144 |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 Figure 1: LISP Header 151 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) 153 This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to 154 support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit 155 and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in 156 Figure 2 and described below. 158 0 1 2 3 159 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 1 160 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 161 |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | 162 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 163 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header 168 P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. 170 If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent 171 to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 173 The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next 174 Protocol field. 176 Nonce/Map-Version: In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower 177 24 bits of the first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to 178 support map- versioning. These are all optional capabilities that 179 are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits 180 respectively. 182 When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the 183 middle 16 bits (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits). Note that 184 the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set. 186 When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version fields use 187 the middle 16 bits: the Source Map-Version uses the high-order 8 188 bits, and the Dest Map-Version uses the low-order 8 bits. 190 When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, 191 the middle 16-bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on 192 receipt. 194 The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the one 195 used in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP data plane 196 encapsulation, reduces the length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits. 197 As per [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) 198 are required to generate different nonces when sending to 199 different Routing Locators (RLOCs), but the same nonce can be used 200 for a period of time when encapsulating to the same Egress Tunnel 201 Router (ETR). The use of 16 bits nonces still allows an ITR to 202 determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at the same 203 time. 205 Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields, 206 compared with [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], is reduced from 12 to 8 207 bits. This still allows to associate 256 different versions to 208 each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping 209 to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the 210 mapping. 212 Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to 213 carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the 214 protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. 216 This document defines the following Next Protocol values: 218 0x01 : IPv4 220 0x02 : IPv6 222 0x03 : Ethernet 224 0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] 226 0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned 227 0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers) 229 The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in 230 Section 6.1. 232 Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols 233 encoded as generic "shim" headers. Shim protocols all use a common 234 header structure, which includes a next header field using the same 235 values as described above. When a shim header protocol is used with 236 other data described by protocols identified by next protocol values 237 from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before the further 238 protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate what follows 239 the shim protocol. 241 Implementations that are not aware of a given shim header MUST ignore 242 the header and proceed to parse the next protocol. Shim protocols 243 MUST have the first 32 bits defined as: 245 0 1 2 3 246 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 1 247 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 248 | Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol | 249 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 250 | | 251 ~ Protocol Specific Fields ~ 252 | | 253 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 255 Figure 3: Shim Header 257 Where: 259 Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol. 261 Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not 262 including the first 4 octects. 264 Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined 265 in this message. 267 Next Protocol Field: This next protocol field contains the protocol 268 of the encapsulated payload. The protocol registry will be 269 requested from IANA as per section 10.2. 271 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations 273 4.1. Applicability Statement 275 LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP 276 usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of 277 these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the 278 nature of the encapsulated payload. 280 [RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications, 281 1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled 282 environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of 283 cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be 284 managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general 285 Internet this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel 286 protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less 287 restrictive than the requirements of general internet. 289 LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered 290 by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol. The 291 common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating 292 entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other 293 large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and 294 topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and 295 Internet topology, routing, and addressing. 297 LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by 298 a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators 299 that fits with the definition of controlled environments in 300 [RFC8085]. 302 For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled 303 environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP 304 network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g., 305 via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant 306 portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086]. 308 It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the 309 guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to 310 their LISP-GPE deployments 312 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality 314 LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality 315 and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control. 316 As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or 317 within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE). 318 An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion 319 by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data 320 traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity. 322 Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification 323 mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN 324 field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP- 325 GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from 326 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. 328 4.3. UDP Checksum 330 For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies 331 how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP 332 checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is 333 desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. 335 In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and 336 payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different 337 tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD 338 be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum 339 provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in 340 transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or 341 cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical- 342 layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see 343 Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists, 344 an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as 345 offered by IPSec. 347 An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum 348 if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity 349 mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the 350 conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met. 352 By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported 353 over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP 354 checksum if additional requirements in Section 4.3.1 are met. 356 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 358 When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6 359 headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential 360 data corruption. As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum 361 when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to configure to 362 operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed 363 controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the 364 following conditions are met: 366 a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely 367 (perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay 368 network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected 369 packet corruption 371 b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through 372 historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum) 373 that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where 374 the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption 376 c. LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of 377 misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer 378 checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission) 380 In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum 381 MUST meet the following requirements: 383 1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration 384 for all LISP-GPE tunnels 386 2. If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such 387 xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in 388 section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section 389 5 of [RFC6936] 391 3. The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and 392 destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that 393 is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other 394 packets for which such check fails 396 4. The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6 397 source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP 398 checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of 399 the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not 400 to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address, 401 irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or 402 multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED 403 to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use 404 zero UDP checksum as is feasible 406 5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6 407 with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet. 408 Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the 409 PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP 410 network from networks carrying General Internet 412 The above requirements do not change either the requirements 413 specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements 414 specified in [RFC6936]. 416 The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the 417 destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of 418 source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide 419 some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6 420 header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at 421 least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section 422 provides additional assurance. 424 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads 426 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 427 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY 428 be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the 3-bit Type of Service 429 field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic 430 Class' field. 432 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 433 header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped 434 to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field. 436 5. Backward Compatibility 438 LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. 440 The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane 441 capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data- 442 Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in 443 [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR 444 (xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document. 446 When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the 447 P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in 448 this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated 449 that it supports this specification because such a router would 450 ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so 451 would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing 452 significant errors. 454 A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets (that have the 455 P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router. 457 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities 459 LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple 460 Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply 461 to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In 462 this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP- 463 GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR. 465 The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as 466 defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to 467 represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation. The values are 468 tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 6.2. 470 This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the 471 "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as: 473 g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI) 474 encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE 475 (Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP 476 port 4341 478 6. IANA Considerations 480 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry 482 IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol". 483 These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are 484 defined in this document. New values are assigned under the 485 Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are 486 being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards 487 track protocols. 489 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 490 | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | 491 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 492 | 0x00 | Reserved | This Document | 493 | 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document | 494 | 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document | 495 | 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document | 496 | 0x04 | NSH | This Document | 497 | 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | | 498 | 0x80 | GBP | This Document | 499 | 0x81 | iOAM | This Document | 500 | 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | | 501 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 503 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry 505 IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes 506 Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an 507 ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060]. The 508 bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF type. 509 Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation. New 510 values are assigned under the Specification Required policy 511 [RFC8126]. 513 Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bits 24-31. Bit 24 514 (bit 'g') is assigned to LISP-GPE, bits 25-31 assignment is 515 conformant with [RFC8060]. 517 +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ 518 | Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference | 519 | Position | Name | | | 520 +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ 521 | 0-23 | | Unassigned | | 522 | 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This | 523 | | | (LISP-GPE) | Document | 524 | 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | This | 525 | | | | Document | 526 | 26 | G | Generic Network Virtualization | This | 527 | | | Encapsulation (GENEVE) | Document | 528 | 27 | N | Network Virtualization - Generic | This | 529 | | | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE) | Document | 530 | 28 | v | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension | This | 531 | | | (VXLAN-GPE) | Document | 532 | 29 | V | Virtual eXtensible Local Area | This | 533 | | | Network (VXLAN) | Document | 534 | 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | This | 535 | | | | Document | 536 | 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | This | 537 | | | (LISP) | Document | 538 +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ 540 Editorial Note (The following paragraph to be removed by the RFC 541 Editor before publication) 543 The "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" was "hardcoded" in 544 RFC8060, assigning values to bits 25-31. This draft allocates the 545 "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" registry assigning a 546 value to bit 24 for the LISP-GPE encapsualtion, assigning bits 25-31 547 values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future 548 allocation of values 0-23. 550 7. Security Considerations 552 LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security 553 considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835]. 555 The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 556 relies on the nonce to detect reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP- 557 GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce, compared with the 24-bit nonce used in 558 LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly 559 guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable 560 RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing 561 mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of attack. 563 The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] about use of 564 Echo Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits apply to LISP-GPE 565 as well. 567 LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is 568 subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the 569 packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity 570 protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination 571 with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from 572 on-path attackers. 574 With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and 575 traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload 576 encapsulated. 578 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors 580 A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and 581 detailed review. 583 This Working Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; 584 the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their 585 respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of 586 this document would like to thank and recognize them and their 587 contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable 588 concepts and content for this document's creation. 590 o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc. 592 o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc. 594 o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc. 596 o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc. 598 o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc. 600 o Larry Kreeger 602 o John Lemon, Broadcom 604 o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium 606 9. References 608 9.1. Normative References 610 [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] 611 Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 612 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- 613 lisp-6834bis-04 (work in progress), August 2019. 615 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 616 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 617 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 618 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 (work in progress), 619 June 2019. 621 [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 622 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area 623 networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, 624 DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, 625 . 628 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 629 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 630 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 633 9.2. Informative References 635 [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] 636 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., 637 Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., 638 Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE 639 Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm- 640 ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019. 642 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] 643 Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler, 644 "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to 645 Protocols that Encapsulate IP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn- 646 encap-guidelines-13 (work in progress), May 2019. 648 [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] 649 Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group 650 Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon- 651 vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019. 653 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 654 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 655 December 1998, . 657 [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion 658 Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November 659 2010, . 661 [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and 662 UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, 663 DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, . 666 [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement 667 for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", 668 RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, 669 . 671 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 672 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 673 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 674 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 675 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 676 . 678 [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 679 Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, 680 DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, . 683 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 684 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 685 February 2017, . 687 [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage 688 Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, 689 March 2017, . 691 [RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE- 692 in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, 693 March 2017, . 695 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 696 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 697 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 698 . 700 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 701 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 702 May 2017, . 704 [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., 705 "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, 706 DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, . 709 Authors' Addresses 711 Fabio Maino (editor) 712 Cisco Systems 713 San Jose, CA 95134 714 USA 716 Email: fmaino@cisco.com 718 Jennifer Lemon 719 Broadcom 720 270 Innovation Drive 721 San Jose, CA 95134 722 USA 724 Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com 726 Puneet Agarwal 727 Innovium 728 USA 730 Email: puneet@acm.org 732 Darrel Lewis 733 Cisco Systems 735 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 736 Michael Smith 737 Cisco Systems 739 Email: michsmit@cisco.com