idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-14.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 (January 8, 2020) is 1542 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines-13 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2460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: July 11, 2020 Broadcom 6 P. Agarwal 7 Innovium 8 D. Lewis 9 M. Smith 10 Cisco 11 January 8, 2020 13 LISP Generic Protocol Extension 14 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-14 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 July 11, 2020. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2020 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]. Those two features are no longer 102 available when the P-bit is used. However, appropriate LISP-GPE shim 103 headers can be defined to specify capabilities that are equivalent to 104 echo-noncing and/or map-versioning. 106 Since all of the reserved bits of the LISP Data-Plane header have 107 been allocated, LISP-GPE can also be used to extend the LISP Data- 108 Plane header by defining Next Protocol "shim" headers that implements 109 new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. For 110 example, the use of the Group-Based Policy (GBP) header 111 [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] or of the In-situ Operations, 112 Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) header 113 [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] with LISP-GPE, can be considered 114 an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for Group-Based Policy 115 functionalities or IOAM metadata. 117 1.1. Conventions 119 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 120 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 121 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 122 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 123 capitals, as shown here. 125 1.2. Definition of Terms 127 This document uses terms already defined in 128 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 130 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions 132 As described in Section 1, the LISP header has no protocol identifier 133 that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because of this, 134 LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads. 136 The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags 137 (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an 138 instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility 139 to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is 140 the last reserved bit in the LISP header. 142 0 1 2 3 143 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 1 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 147 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 Figure 1: LISP Header 152 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) 154 This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to 155 support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit 156 and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This document specifies 157 the protocol behavior when the P-bit is set to 1, no changes are 158 introduced when the P-bit is set to 0. The LISP-GPE header is shown 159 in Figure 2 and described below. 161 0 1 2 3 162 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 1 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version/Next Protocol | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header 171 P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P-bit is 172 set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next Protocol 173 field. 175 If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent 176 to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 178 When the P-bit is set to 1, bits N, E, V, and bits 8-23 of the 179 'Nonce/Map-Version/Next Protocol' field MUST be set to zero on 180 transmission and ignored on receipt. Features equivalent to those 181 that were implemented with bits N,E and V in 182 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], such as echo-noncing and map- 183 versioning, can be implemented by defining appropriate LISP-GPE 184 shim headers. 186 When the P-bit is set to 1, the LISP-GPE header is encoded as: 188 0 x 0 0 x 1 x x 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| 0x0000 | Next Protocol | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 Figure 3: LISP-GPE with P-bit set to 1 197 Next Protocol: When the P-bit is set to 1, the lower 8 bits of the 198 first 32-bit word are used to carry a Next Protocol. This Next 199 Protocol field contains the protocol of the encapsulated payload 200 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 the IANA LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry 217 as described in Section 6.1. 219 Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols 220 encoded as generic "shim" headers. All shim protocols MUST use the 221 header structure in Figure 4, which includes a Next Protocol field. 222 When a shim header is used with other protocols identified by next 223 protocol values from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before 224 the further protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate 225 which protocol follows the shim header. 227 Shim headers can be used to incrementally deploy new GPE features, 228 keeping the processing of shim headers known to a given xTR 229 implementation in the 'fast' path (typically an ASIC), while punting 230 the processing of the remaining new GPE features to the 'slow' path. 232 Shim protocols MUST have the first 32 bits defined as: 234 0 1 2 3 235 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 1 236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 237 | Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol | 238 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 239 | | 240 ~ Protocol Specific Fields ~ 241 | | 242 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 244 Figure 4: Shim Header 246 Where: 248 Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol. 250 Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not 251 including the first 4 octects. 253 Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined 254 in this message. 256 Next Protocol Field: The next protocol field contains the protocol 257 of the encapsulated payload. The values are tracked in the IANA 258 LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry as described in Section 6.1. 260 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations 262 4.1. Applicability Statement 264 LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP 265 usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of 266 these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the 267 nature of the encapsulated payload. 269 [RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications, 270 1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled 271 environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of 272 cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be 273 managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general 274 Internet this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel 275 protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less 276 restrictive than the requirements of general internet. 278 LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered 279 by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol. The 280 common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating 281 entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other 282 large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and 283 topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and 284 Internet topology, routing, and addressing. 286 LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by 287 a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators 288 that fits with the definition of controlled environments in 289 [RFC8085]. 291 For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled 292 environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP 293 network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g., 294 via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant 295 portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086]. 297 It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the 298 guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to 299 their LISP-GPE deployments 301 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality 303 LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality 304 and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control. 305 As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or 306 within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE). 307 An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion 308 by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data 309 traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity. 311 Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification 312 mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN 313 field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP- 314 GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from 315 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. 317 4.3. UDP Checksum 319 For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies 320 how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP 321 checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is 322 desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. 324 In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and 325 payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different 326 tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD 327 be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum 328 provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in 329 transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or 330 cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical- 331 layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see 332 Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists, 333 an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as 334 offered by IPSec. 336 An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum 337 if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity 338 mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the 339 conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met. 341 By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported 342 over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP 343 checksum if additional requirements in Section 4.3.1 are met. 345 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 347 When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6 348 headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential 349 data corruption. As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum 350 when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to configure to 351 operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed 352 controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the 353 following conditions are met: 355 a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely 356 (perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay 357 network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected 358 packet corruption 360 b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through 361 historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum) 362 that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where 363 the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption 365 c. LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of 366 misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer 367 checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission) 369 In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum 370 MUST meet the following requirements: 372 1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration 373 for all LISP-GPE tunnels 375 2. If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such 376 xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in 377 section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section 378 5 of [RFC6936] 380 3. The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and 381 destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that 382 is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other 383 packets for which such check fails 385 4. The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6 386 source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP 387 checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of 388 the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not 389 to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address, 390 irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or 391 multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED 392 to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use 393 zero UDP checksum as is feasible 395 5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6 396 with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet. 397 Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the 398 PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP 399 network from networks carrying General Internet 401 The above requirements do not change either the requirements 402 specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements 403 specified in [RFC6936]. 405 The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the 406 destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of 407 source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide 408 some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6 409 header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at 410 least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section 411 provides additional assurance. 413 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads 415 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 416 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY 417 be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the 3-bit Type of Service 418 field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic 419 Class' field. 421 When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner 422 header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped 423 to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field. 425 5. Backward Compatibility 427 LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. 429 When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the 430 P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in 431 this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated 432 that it supports this specification because such a router would 433 ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so 434 would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing 435 significant errors. 437 5.1. Detection of ETR Capabilities 439 The discovery of xTR capabilities to support LISP-GPE is out of the 440 scope of this document. Given that the applicability domain of LISP- 441 GPE is a traffic-managed controlled environment, ITR/ETR (xTR) 442 configuration mechanisms may be 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 P-Bit and the 474 packet itself can remove part of the payload or claim to encapsulate 475 any protocol payload type. Typical integrity protection mechanisms 476 (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination with LISP-GPE by those 477 protocol extensions that want to protect from 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-28 (work in progress), 519 November 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-03 (work in progress), November 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 629 San Jose, CA 95134 630 USA 632 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 634 Michael Smith 635 Cisco Systems 636 San Jose, CA 95134 637 USA 639 Email: michsmit@cisco.com