idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 (November 4, 2019) is 1634 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460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 (~~), 4 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: May 7, 2020 Broadcom 6 P. Agarwal 7 Innovium 8 D. Lewis 9 M. Smith 10 Cisco 11 November 4, 2019 13 LISP Generic Protocol Extension 14 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-10 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 May 7, 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 . . . . . . . . 6 62 4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR 69 Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 11 73 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 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 that was allocated to the 102 echo-noncing and map-versioning features in 103 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 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 Nonce, Map-Versioning and Locator Status Bit fields are not part of 117 the LISP-GPE header. Shim headers can be used to specify features 118 such as echo-noncing, map-versioning or reachability by defining 119 fields of the same size, or larger, of those specified in 120 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 122 1.1. Conventions 124 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 125 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 126 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 127 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 128 capitals, as shown here. 130 1.2. Definition of Terms 132 This document uses terms already defined in 133 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 135 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions 137 As described in Section 1, the LISP header has no protocol identifier 138 that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because of this, 139 LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads. 141 The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags 142 (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an 143 instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility 144 to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is 145 the last reserved bit in the LISP header. 147 0 1 2 3 148 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 1 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 Figure 1: LISP Header 157 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) 159 This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to 160 support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit 161 and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in 162 Figure 2 and described below. 164 0 1 2 3 165 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 1 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 | Res. |I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | Instance ID | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header 174 Bits 0-3: Bits 0-3 of the LISP-GPE header are Reserved. They MUST 175 be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt. 177 Features that were implemented with bits 0-3 in 178 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], such as echo-noncing, map-versioning 179 and reachability, can be implemented by defining the appropriate 180 shim headers. 182 Instance ID When the I-Bit is set to 1 the high-order 24 bits of the 183 Instance ID field are used as an Instance ID, as specified in 184 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. The low-order 8 bits are set to zero, 185 as the Locator-Status-Bits feature is not supported in LISP-GPE. 187 P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. 189 If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent 190 to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] with bits N, L, E 191 and V set to 0. 193 The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next 194 Protocol field. The combinations of bits that are allowed when 195 the P-bit is set are the same allowed by 196 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] when bits N, L, E and V are set to 0. 198 Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to 199 carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the 200 protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. 202 This document defines the following Next Protocol values: 204 0x01 : IPv4 206 0x02 : IPv6 208 0x03 : Ethernet 210 0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] 212 0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned 214 0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers) 216 The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in 217 Section 6.1. 219 Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols 220 encoded as generic "shim" headers. Shim protocols all use a common 221 header structure, which includes a next header field using the same 222 values as described above. When a shim header protocol is used with 223 other data described by protocols identified by next protocol values 224 from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before the further 225 protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate what follows 226 the shim protocol. 228 Implementations that are not aware of a given shim header MUST ignore 229 the header and proceed to parse the next protocol. Shim protocols 230 MUST have the first 32 bits defined as: 232 0 1 2 3 233 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 1 234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 235 | Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol | 236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 237 | | 238 ~ Protocol Specific Fields ~ 239 | | 240 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 242 Figure 3: Shim Header 244 Where: 246 Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol. 248 Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not 249 including the first 4 octects. 251 Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined 252 in this message. 254 Next Protocol Field: This next protocol field contains the protocol 255 of the encapsulated payload. The protocol registry will be 256 requested from IANA as per section 10.2. 258 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations 260 4.1. Applicability Statement 262 LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP 263 usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of 264 these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the 265 nature of the encapsulated payload. 267 [RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications, 268 1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled 269 environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of 270 cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be 271 managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general 272 Internet this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel 273 protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less 274 restrictive than the requirements of general internet. 276 LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered 277 by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol. The 278 common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating 279 entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other 280 large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and 281 topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and 282 Internet topology, routing, and addressing. 284 LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by 285 a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators 286 that fits with the definition of controlled environments in 287 [RFC8085]. 289 For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled 290 environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP 291 network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g., 292 via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant 293 portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086]. 295 It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the 296 guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to 297 their LISP-GPE deployments 299 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality 301 LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality 302 and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control. 303 As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or 304 within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE). 305 An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion 306 by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data 307 traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity. 309 Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification 310 mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN 311 field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP- 312 GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from 313 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. 315 4.3. UDP Checksum 317 For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies 318 how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP 319 checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is 320 desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. 322 In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and 323 payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different 324 tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD 325 be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum 326 provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in 327 transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or 328 cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical- 329 layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see 330 Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists, 331 an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as 332 offered by IPSec. 334 An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum 335 if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity 336 mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the 337 conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met. 339 By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported 340 over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP 341 checksum if additional requirements in Section 4.3.1 are met. 343 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 345 When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6 346 headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential 347 data corruption. As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum 348 when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to configure to 349 operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed 350 controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the 351 following conditions are met: 353 a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely 354 (perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay 355 network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected 356 packet corruption 358 b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through 359 historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum) 360 that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where 361 the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption 363 c. LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of 364 misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer 365 checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission) 367 In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum 368 MUST meet the following requirements: 370 1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration 371 for all LISP-GPE tunnels 373 2. If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such 374 xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in 375 section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section 376 5 of [RFC6936] 378 3. The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and 379 destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that 380 is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other 381 packets for which such check fails 383 4. The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6 384 source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP 385 checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of 386 the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not 387 to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address, 388 irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or 389 multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED 390 to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use 391 zero UDP checksum as is feasible 393 5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6 394 with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet. 395 Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the 396 PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP 397 network from networks carrying General Internet 399 The above requirements do not change either the requirements 400 specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements 401 specified in [RFC6936]. 403 The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the 404 destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of 405 source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide 406 some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6 407 header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at 408 least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section 409 provides additional assurance. 411 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads 413 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 414 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY 415 be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the 3-bit Type of Service 416 field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic 417 Class' field. 419 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 420 header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped 421 to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field. 423 5. Backward Compatibility 425 LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. 427 The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane 428 capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data- 429 Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in 430 [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR 431 (xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document. 433 When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the 434 P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in 435 this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated 436 that it supports this specification because such a router would 437 ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so 438 would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing 439 significant errors. 441 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities 443 LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple 444 Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply 445 to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In 446 this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP- 447 GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR. 449 The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as 450 defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to 451 represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation. The values are 452 tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 6.2. 454 This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the 455 "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as: 457 g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI) 458 encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE 459 (Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP 460 port 4341 462 6. IANA Considerations 464 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry 466 IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol". 467 These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are 468 defined in this document. New values are assigned under the 469 Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are 470 being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards 471 track protocols. 473 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 474 | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | 475 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 476 | 0x00 | Reserved | This Document | 477 | 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document | 478 | 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document | 479 | 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document | 480 | 0x04 | NSH | This Document | 481 | 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | | 482 | 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | | 483 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 485 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry 487 IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes 488 Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an 489 ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060]. The 490 bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF type. 491 Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation. New 492 values are assigned under the Specification Required policy 493 [RFC8126]. 495 Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bits 24-31. Bit 24 496 (bit 'g') is assigned to LISP-GPE. 498 +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ 499 | Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference | 500 | Position | Name | | | 501 +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ 502 | 0-23 | | Unassigned | | 503 | 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This | 504 | | | (LISP-GPE) | Document | 505 | 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | This | 506 | | | | Document | 507 | 26 | G | Generic Network Virtualization | This | 508 | | | Encapsulation (GENEVE) | Document | 509 | 27 | N | Network Virtualization - Generic | This | 510 | | | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE) | Document | 511 | 28 | v | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension | This | 512 | | | (VXLAN-GPE) | Document | 513 | 29 | V | Virtual eXtensible Local Area | This | 514 | | | Network (VXLAN) | Document | 515 | 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | This | 516 | | | | Document | 517 | 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | This | 518 | | | (LISP) | Document | 519 +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ 521 Editorial Note (The following paragraph to be removed by the RFC 522 Editor before publication) 524 The "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" was "hardcoded" in 525 RFC8060, assigning values to bits 25-31. This draft allocates the 526 "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" registry assigning a 527 value to bit 24 for the LISP-GPE encapsulation, assigning bits 25-31 528 values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future 529 allocation of values 0-23. 531 7. Security Considerations 533 LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security 534 considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835]. 536 LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is 537 subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the 538 packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity 539 protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination 540 with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from 541 on-path attackers. 543 With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and 544 traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload 545 encapsulated. 547 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors 549 A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and 550 detailed review. 552 This Working Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; 553 the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their 554 respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of 555 this document would like to thank and recognize them and their 556 contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable 557 concepts and content for this document's creation. 559 o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc. 561 o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc. 563 o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc. 565 o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc. 567 o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc. 569 o Larry Kreeger 571 o John Lemon, Broadcom 573 o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium 575 9. References 577 9.1. Normative References 579 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 580 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 581 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 582 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 (work in progress), 583 June 2019. 585 [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 586 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area 587 networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, 588 DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, 589 . 592 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 593 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 594 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 597 [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion 598 Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November 599 2010, . 601 9.2. Informative References 603 [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] 604 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., 605 Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., 606 Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE 607 Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm- 608 ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019. 610 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] 611 Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler, 612 "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to 613 Protocols that Encapsulate IP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn- 614 encap-guidelines-13 (work in progress), May 2019. 616 [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] 617 Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group 618 Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon- 619 vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019. 621 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 622 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 623 December 1998, . 625 [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and 626 UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, 627 DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, . 630 [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement 631 for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", 632 RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, 633 . 635 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 636 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 637 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 638 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 639 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 640 . 642 [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 643 Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, 644 DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, . 647 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 648 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 649 February 2017, . 651 [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage 652 Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, 653 March 2017, . 655 [RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE- 656 in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, 657 March 2017, . 659 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 660 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 661 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 662 . 664 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 665 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 666 May 2017, . 668 [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., 669 "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, 670 DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, . 673 Authors' Addresses 675 Fabio Maino (editor) 676 Cisco Systems 677 San Jose, CA 95134 678 USA 680 Email: fmaino@cisco.com 681 Jennifer Lemon 682 Broadcom 683 270 Innovation Drive 684 San Jose, CA 95134 685 USA 687 Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com 689 Puneet Agarwal 690 Innovium 691 USA 693 Email: puneet@acm.org 695 Darrel Lewis 696 Cisco Systems 698 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 700 Michael Smith 701 Cisco Systems 703 Email: michsmit@cisco.com