idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12.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 19, 2019) is 1620 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460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 22, 2020 Broadcom 6 P. Agarwal 7 Innovium 8 D. Lewis 9 M. Smith 10 Cisco 11 November 19, 2019 13 LISP Generic Protocol Extension 14 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12 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 https://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 22, 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 (https://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. Detection of ETR Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 75 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 1. Introduction 80 The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It 81 specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets 82 (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer 83 UDP/IP transport. 85 The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being 86 encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only 87 IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably Virtual eXtensible 88 Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] (which defines a similar header 89 format to LISP), are used to encapsulate Layer-2 (L2) protocols such 90 as Ethernet. 92 This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in 93 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling 94 the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all 95 the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments. 97 A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the 98 presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field, 99 when present, uses 8 bits of the field that was allocated to the 100 echo-noncing and map-versioning features in 101 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 103 Since all of the reserved bits of the LISP Data-Plane header have 104 been allocated, LISP-GPE can also be used to extend the LISP Data- 105 Plane header by defining Next Protocol "shim" headers that implements 106 new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. For 107 example, the use of the Group-Based Policy (GBP) header 108 [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] or of the In-situ Operations, 109 Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) header 110 [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] with LISP-GPE, can be considered 111 an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for Group-Based Policy 112 functionalities or IOAM metadata. 114 Nonce, Map-Versioning and Locator Status Bit fields are not part of 115 the LISP-GPE header. Shim headers can be used to specify features 116 such as echo-noncing, map-versioning or reachability by defining 117 fields of the same size, or larger, of those specified in 118 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 120 1.1. Conventions 122 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 123 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 124 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 125 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 126 capitals, as shown here. 128 1.2. Definition of Terms 130 This document uses terms already defined in 131 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 133 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions 135 As described in Section 1, the LISP header has no protocol identifier 136 that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because of this, 137 LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads. 139 The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags 140 (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an 141 instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility 142 to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is 143 the last reserved bit in the LISP header. 145 0 1 2 3 146 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 1 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 148 |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 153 Figure 1: LISP Header 155 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) 157 This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to 158 support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit 159 and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in 160 Figure 2 and described below. 162 0 1 2 3 163 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 1 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 | Res. |I|P|K|K| Reserved | Next Protocol | 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 | Instance ID | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header 172 Bits 0-3 and 8-23: Bits 0-3 and 8-23 of the LISP-GPE header are 173 Reserved. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on 174 receipt. 176 Features that were implemented with bits 0-3 and 8-23 in 177 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], such as echo-noncing, map-versioning 178 and reachability, can be implemented by defining the appropriate 179 shim headers. 181 Instance ID When the I-Bit is set to 1 the high-order 24 bits of the 182 Instance ID field are used as an Instance ID, as specified in 183 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. The low-order 8 bits are set to zero, 184 as the Locator-Status-Bits feature is not supported in LISP-GPE. 186 P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. 188 If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent 189 to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] with bits N, L, E 190 and V set to 0. 192 The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next 193 Protocol field. The combinations of bits that are allowed when 194 the P-bit is set are the same allowed by 195 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] when bits N, L, E and V are set to 0. 197 Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to 198 carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the 199 protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. 201 This document defines the following Next Protocol values: 203 0x01 : IPv4 205 0x02 : IPv6 207 0x03 : Ethernet 209 0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] 211 0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned 213 0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers) 215 The values are tracked in the IANA LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry 216 as described in Section 6.1. 218 Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols 219 encoded as generic "shim" headers. All shim protocols MUST use the 220 header structure in Figure 3, which includes a Next Protocol field. 221 When a shim header is used with other protocols identified by next 222 protocol values from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before 223 the further protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate 224 which protocol follows the shim header. 226 Shim headers can be used to incrementally deploy new GPE features, 227 keeping the processing of shim headers known to a given xTR 228 implementation in the 'fast' path (typically an ASIC), while punting 229 the processing of the remaining new GPE features to the 'slow' path. 231 Shim protocols MUST have the first 32 bits defined as: 233 0 1 2 3 234 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 1 235 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 236 | Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol | 237 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 238 | | 239 ~ Protocol Specific Fields ~ 240 | | 241 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 243 Figure 3: Shim Header 245 Where: 247 Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol. 249 Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not 250 including the first 4 octects. 252 Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined 253 in this message. 255 Next Protocol Field: The next protocol field contains the protocol 256 of the encapsulated payload. The values are tracked in the IANA 257 LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry as described in Section 6.1. 259 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations 261 4.1. Applicability Statement 263 LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP 264 usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of 265 these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the 266 nature of the encapsulated payload. 268 [RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications, 269 1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled 270 environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of 271 cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be 272 managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general 273 Internet this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel 274 protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less 275 restrictive than the requirements of general internet. 277 LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered 278 by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol. The 279 common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating 280 entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other 281 large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and 282 topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and 283 Internet topology, routing, and addressing. 285 LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by 286 a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators 287 that fits with the definition of controlled environments in 288 [RFC8085]. 290 For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled 291 environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP 292 network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g., 293 via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant 294 portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086]. 296 It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the 297 guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to 298 their LISP-GPE deployments 300 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality 302 LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality 303 and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control. 304 As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or 305 within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE). 306 An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion 307 by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data 308 traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity. 310 Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification 311 mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN 312 field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP- 313 GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from 314 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. 316 4.3. UDP Checksum 318 For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies 319 how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP 320 checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is 321 desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. 323 In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and 324 payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different 325 tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD 326 be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum 327 provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in 328 transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or 329 cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical- 330 layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see 331 Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists, 332 an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as 333 offered by IPSec. 335 An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum 336 if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity 337 mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the 338 conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met. 340 By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported 341 over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP 342 checksum if additional requirements in Section 4.3.1 are met. 344 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 346 When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6 347 headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential 348 data corruption. As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum 349 when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to configure to 350 operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed 351 controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the 352 following conditions are met: 354 a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely 355 (perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay 356 network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected 357 packet corruption 359 b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through 360 historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum) 361 that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where 362 the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption 364 c. LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of 365 misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer 366 checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission) 368 In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum 369 MUST meet the following requirements: 371 1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration 372 for all LISP-GPE tunnels 374 2. If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such 375 xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in 376 section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section 377 5 of [RFC6936] 379 3. The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and 380 destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that 381 is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other 382 packets for which such check fails 384 4. The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6 385 source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP 386 checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of 387 the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not 388 to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address, 389 irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or 390 multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED 391 to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use 392 zero UDP checksum as is feasible 394 5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6 395 with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet. 396 Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the 397 PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP 398 network from networks carrying General Internet 400 The above requirements do not change either the requirements 401 specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements 402 specified in [RFC6936]. 404 The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the 405 destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of 406 source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide 407 some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6 408 header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at 409 least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section 410 provides additional assurance. 412 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads 414 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 415 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY 416 be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the 3-bit Type of Service 417 field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic 418 Class' field. 420 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 421 header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped 422 to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field. 424 5. Backward Compatibility 426 LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. 428 When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the 429 P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in 430 this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated 431 that it supports this specification because such a router would 432 ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so 433 would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing 434 significant errors. 436 5.1. Detection of ETR Capabilities 438 The detection of ETR capabilities to support multiple data plane 439 encapsulations and shim headers is out of the scope of this document. 440 Given that the applicability domain of LISP-GPE is a traffic-managed 441 controlled environment, ITR/ETR (xTR) configuration mechanisms may be 442 used for this purpose. 444 6. IANA Considerations 446 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry 448 IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol". 449 These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are 450 defined in this document. New values are assigned under the 451 Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are 452 being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards 453 track protocols. 455 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 456 | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | 457 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 458 | 0x00 | Reserved | This Document | 459 | 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document | 460 | 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document | 461 | 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document | 462 | 0x04 | NSH | This Document | 463 | 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | | 464 | 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | | 465 +---------------+-------------+---------------+ 467 7. Security Considerations 469 LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security 470 considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835]. 472 LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is 473 subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the 474 packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity 475 protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination 476 with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from 477 on-path attackers. 479 With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and 480 traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload 481 encapsulated. 483 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors 485 A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and 486 detailed review. 488 This Working Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; 489 the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their 490 respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of 491 this document would like to thank and recognize them and their 492 contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable 493 concepts and content for this document's creation. 495 o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc. 497 o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc. 499 o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc. 501 o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc. 503 o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc. 505 o Larry Kreeger 507 o John Lemon, Broadcom 509 o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium 511 9. References 513 9.1. Normative References 515 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 516 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 517 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 518 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 (work in progress), 519 June 2019. 521 [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 522 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area 523 networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, 524 DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, 525 . 528 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 529 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 530 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 531 . 533 [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion 534 Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November 535 2010, . 537 9.2. Informative References 539 [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] 540 Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., 541 Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., 542 Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE 543 Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm- 544 ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019. 546 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] 547 Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler, 548 "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to 549 Protocols that Encapsulate IP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn- 550 encap-guidelines-13 (work in progress), May 2019. 552 [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] 553 Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group 554 Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon- 555 vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019. 557 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 558 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 559 December 1998, . 561 [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and 562 UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, 563 DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, 564 . 566 [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement 567 for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", 568 RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, 569 . 571 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 572 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 573 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 574 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 575 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 576 . 578 [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 579 Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, 580 DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, 581 . 583 [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage 584 Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, 585 March 2017, . 587 [RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE- 588 in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, 589 March 2017, . 591 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 592 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 593 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 594 . 596 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 597 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 598 May 2017, . 600 [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., 601 "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, 602 DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, 603 . 605 Authors' Addresses 607 Fabio Maino (editor) 608 Cisco Systems 609 San Jose, CA 95134 610 USA 612 Email: fmaino@cisco.com 613 Jennifer Lemon 614 Broadcom 615 270 Innovation Drive 616 San Jose, CA 95134 617 USA 619 Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com 621 Puneet Agarwal 622 Innovium 623 USA 625 Email: puneet@acm.org 627 Darrel Lewis 628 Cisco Systems 630 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 632 Michael Smith 633 Cisco Systems 635 Email: michsmit@cisco.com