idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-mn-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 11 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 1, 2020) is 1517 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 981, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-30 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal-16 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Farinacci 3 Internet-Draft lispers.net 4 Intended status: Experimental D. Lewis 5 Expires: September 2, 2020 cisco Systems 6 D. Meyer 7 1-4-5.net 8 C. White 9 Logical Elegance, LLC. 10 March 1, 2020 12 LISP Mobile Node 13 draft-ietf-lisp-mn-07 15 Abstract 17 This document describes how a lightweight version of LISP's ITR/ETR 18 functionality can be used to provide seamless mobility to a mobile 19 node. The LISP Mobile Node design described in this document uses 20 standard LISP functionality to provide scalable mobility for LISP 21 mobile nodes. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2020. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 4. Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 4.1. User Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 4.2. Network Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 5. LISP Mobile Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 5.1. Addressing Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 5.2. Control Plane Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 5.3. Data Plane Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 6. Updating Remote Caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 7. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 7.1. LISP Mobile Node to a Stationary Node in a LISP Site . . 11 70 7.1.1. Handling Unidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 7.2. LISP Mobile Node to a Non-LISP Stationary Node . . . . . 12 72 7.3. LISP Mobile Node to LISP Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 7.3.1. One Mobile Node is Roaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 7.4. Non-LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 7.5. LISP Site to LISP Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 8. Multicast and Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 9. RLOC Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 9.1. Mobile Node's RLOC is an EID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 10. LISP Mobile Nodes behind NAT Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 80 11. Mobility Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 81 11.1. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 82 11.2. Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 83 12. LISP Implementation in a Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 84 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 85 13.1. Proxy ETR Hijacking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 86 13.2. LISP Mobile Node using an EID as its RLOC . . . . . . . 20 87 14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 88 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 89 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 90 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 91 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 92 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 93 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 94 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 95 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 96 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 97 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 99 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 100 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 101 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 103 1. Introduction 105 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 106 specifies a design and mechanism for replacing the addresses 107 currently used in the Internet with two separate name spaces: 108 Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), used within sites, and Routing Locators 109 (RLOCs), used by the transit networks that make up the Internet 110 infrastructure. To achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol 111 mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs. The mapping 112 infrastructure is comprised of LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers 113 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and is tied together with LISP+ALT 114 [RFC6836]. 116 This document specifies the behavior of a new LISP network element: 117 the LISP Mobile Node. The LISP Mobile Node implements a subset of 118 the standard Ingress Tunnel Router and Egress Tunnel Router 119 functionality [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Design goals for the LISP 120 mobility design include: 122 o Allowing TCP connections to stay alive while roaming. 124 o Allowing the mobile node to communicate with other mobile nodes 125 while either or both are roaming. 127 o Allowing the mobile node to multi-home (i.e., use multiple 128 interfaces concurrently). 130 o Allowing the mobile node to be a server. That is, any mobile node 131 or stationary node can find and connect to a mobile node as a 132 server. 134 o Providing shortest path bidirectional data paths between a mobile 135 node and any other stationary or mobile node. 137 o Not requiring fine-grained routes in the core network to support 138 mobility. 140 o Not requiring a home-agent, foreign agent or other data plane 141 network elements to support mobility. Note since the LISP mobile 142 node design does not require these data plane elements, there is 143 no triangle routing of data packets as is found in Mobile IP 144 [RFC3344]. 146 o Not requiring new IPv6 extension headers to avoid triangle routing 147 [RFC3775]. 149 The LISP Mobile Node design requires the use of the LISP Map-Server 150 [RFC6836] and LISP Interworking [RFC6832] technology to allow a LISP 151 mobile node to roam and to be discovered in an efficient and scalable 152 manner. The use of Map-Server technology is discussed further in 153 Section 5. 155 The protocol mechanisms described in this document apply those cases 156 in which a node's IP address changes frequently. For example, when a 157 mobile node roams, it is typically assigned a new IP address. 158 Similarly, a broadband subscriber may have its address change 159 frequently; as such, a broadband subscriber can use the LISP Mobile 160 Node mechanisms defined in this specification. 162 The remainder of this document is organized as follows: Section 2 163 defines the terms used in this document. Section 3 provides a 164 overview of salient features of the LISP Mobile Node design, and 165 Section 4 describes design requirements for a LISP Mobile Node. 166 Section 5 provides the detail of LISP Mobile Node data and control 167 plane operation, and Section 6 discusses options for updating remote 168 caches in the presence of unidirectional traffic flows. Section 7 169 specifies how the LISP Mobile Node protocol operates. Section 8 170 specifies multicast operation for LISP mobile nodes. Section 9 and 171 Section 12 outline other considerations for the LISP-MN design and 172 implementation. Finally, Section 13 outlines the security 173 considerations for a LISP mobile node. 175 2. Definition of Terms 177 This section defines the terms used in this document. 179 Stationary Node (SN): A non-mobile node who's IP address changes 180 infrequently. That is, its IP address does not change as 181 frequently as a fast roaming mobile hand-set or a broadband 182 connection and therefore the EID to RLOC mapping is relatively 183 static. 185 Endpoint ID (EID): This is the traditional LISP EID 186 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], and is the address that a LISP mobile 187 node uses as its address for transport connections. A LISP mobile 188 node never changes its EID, which is typically a /32 or /128 189 prefix and is assigned to a loopback interface. Note that the 190 mobile node can have multiple EIDs, and these EIDs can be from 191 different address families. 193 Routing Locator (RLOC): This is the traditional LISP RLOC, and is in 194 general a routable address that can be used to reach a mobile 195 node. Note that there are cases in which an mobile node may 196 receive an address that it thinks is an RLOC (perhaps via DHCP) 197 which is either an EID or an RFC 1918 address [RFC1918]. This 198 could happen if, for example, if the mobile node roams into a LISP 199 domain or a domain behind a Network Address Translator (NAT)) See 200 Section 10 for more details. 202 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that accepts an IP 203 packet with a single IP header (more precisely, an IP packet that 204 does not contain a LISP header). The router treats this "inner" 205 IP destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC 206 mapping lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header 207 with one of its globally routable RLOCs in the source address 208 field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination 209 address field. Note that this destination RLOC may be an 210 intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID- 211 to-RLOC mapping closer to the destination EID. In general, an ITR 212 receives IP packets from site end-systems on one side and sends 213 LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other 214 side. A LISP mobile node, however, when acting as an ITR LISP 215 encapsulates all packet that it originates. 217 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP 218 packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is 219 one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and 220 forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In 221 general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the 222 Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site 223 end-systems on the other side. A LISP mobile node, when acting as 224 an ETR, decapsulates packets that are then typically processed by 225 the mobile node. 227 Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR): PITRs are used to provide 228 interconnectivity between sites that use LISP EIDs and those that 229 do not. They act as a gateway between the Legacy Internet and the 230 LISP enabled Network. A given PITR advertises one or more highly 231 aggregated EID prefixes into the public Internet and acts as the 232 ITR for traffic received from the public Internet. Proxy Ingress 233 Tunnel Routers are described in [RFC6832]. 235 Proxy Egress Tunnel Router (PETR): An infrastructure element used to 236 decapsulate packets sent from mobile nodes to non-LISP sites. 237 Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers are described in [RFC6832]. 239 LISP Mobile Node (LISP-MN): A LISP capable fast roaming mobile hand- 240 set. 242 Map-cache: A data structure which contains an EID-prefix, its 243 associated RLOCs, and the associated policy. Map-caches are 244 typically found in ITRs and PITRs. 246 Negative Map-Reply: A Negative Map-Reply is a Map-Reply that 247 contains a coarsely aggregated non-LISP prefix. Negative Map- 248 Replies are typically generated by Map-Resolvers, and are used to 249 inform an ITR (mobile or stationary) that a site is not a LISP 250 site. A LISP mobile node encapsulate packets to destinations 251 covered by the negative Map-Reply are encapsulated to a PETR. 253 Roaming Event: A Roaming Event occurs when there is a change in a 254 LISP mobile node's RLOC set. 256 3. Design Overview 258 The LISP-MN design described in this document uses the Map-Server/ 259 Map-Resolver service interface in conjunction with a light-weight 260 ITR/ETR implementation in the LISP-MN to provide scalable fast 261 mobility. The LISP-MN control-plane uses a Map-Server as an anchor 262 point, which provides control-plane scalability. In addition, the 263 LISP-MN data-plane takes advantage of shortest path routing and 264 therefore does not increase packet delivery latency. 266 4. Design Requirements 268 This section outlines the design requirements for a LISP-MN, and is 269 divided into User Requirements (Section 4.1) and Network Requirements 270 (Section 4.2). 272 4.1. User Requirements 274 This section describes the user-level functionality provided by a 275 LISP-MN. 277 Transport Connection Survivability: The LISP-MN design must allow a 278 LISP-MN to roam while keeping transport connections alive. 280 Simultaneous Roaming: The LISP-MN design must allow a LISP-MN to 281 talk to another LISP-MN while both are roaming. 283 Multihoming: The LISP-MN design must allow for simultaneous use of 284 multiple Internet connections by a LISP-MN. In addition, the 285 design must allow for the LISP mobile node to specify ingress 286 traffic engineering policies as documented in 287 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. That is, the LISP-MN must be able to 288 specify both active/active and active/passive policies for ingress 289 traffic. 291 Shortest Path Data Plane: The LISP-MN design must allow for shortest 292 path bidirectional traffic between a LISP-MN and a stationary 293 node, and between a LISP-MN and another LISP-MN (i.e., without 294 triangle routing in the data path). This provides a low-latency 295 data path between the LISP-MN and the nodes that it is 296 communicating with. 298 4.2. Network Requirements 300 This section describes the network functionality that the LISP-MN 301 design provides to a LISP-MN. 303 Routing System Scalability: The LISP-MN design must not require 304 injection of fine-grained routes into the core network. 306 Mapping System Scalability: The LISP-MN design must not require 307 additional state in the mapping system. In particular, any 308 mapping state required to support LISP mobility must BE confined 309 to the LISP-MN's Map-Server and the ITRs which are talking to the 310 LISP-MN. 312 Component Reuse: The LISP-MN design must use existing LISP 313 infrastructure components. These include map server, map 314 resolver, and interworking infrastructure components. 316 Home Agent/Foreign Agent: The LISP-MN design must not require the 317 use of home-agent or foreign-agent infrastructure components 318 [RFC3344]. 320 Readdressing: The LISP-MN design must not require TCP connections to 321 be reset when the mobile node roams. In particular, since the IP 322 address associated with a transport connection will not change as 323 the mobile node roams, TCP connections will not reset. 325 5. LISP Mobile Node Operation 327 The LISP-MN design is built from three existing LISP components: A 328 lightweight LISP implementation that runs in an LISP-MN, and the 329 existing Map-Server [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and Interworking 330 [RFC6832] infrastructures. A LISP mobile node typically sends and 331 receives LISP encapsulated packets (exceptions include management 332 protocols such as DHCP). 334 The LISP-MN design makes a single mobile node look like a LISP site 335 as described in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] by implementing ITR and 336 ETR functionality. Note that one subtle difference between standard 337 ITR behavior and LISP-MN is that the LISP-MN encapsulates all non- 338 local, non-LISP site destined outgoing packets to a PETR. 340 When a LISP-MN roams onto a new network, it receives a new RLOC. 341 Since the LISP-MN is the authoritative ETR for its EID-prefix, it 342 must Map-Register it's updated RLOC set. New sessions can be 343 established as soon as the registration process completes. Sessions 344 that are encapsulating to RLOCs that did not change during the 345 roaming event are not affected by the roaming event (or subsequent 346 mapping update). However, the LISP-MN must update the ITRs and PITRs 347 that have cached a previous mapping. It does this using the 348 techniques described in Section 6. 350 5.1. Addressing Architecture 352 A LISP-MN is typically provisioned with one or more EIDs that it uses 353 for all transport connections. LISP-MN EIDs are provisioned from 354 blocks reserved from mobile nodes much the way mobile phone numbers 355 are provisioned today (such that they do not overlap with the EID 356 space of any enterprise). These EIDs can be either IPv4 or IPv6 357 addresses. For example, one EID might be for a public network while 358 another might be for a private network; in this case the "public" EID 359 will be associated with RLOCs from the public Internet, while the 360 "private" EID will be associated with private RLOCs. It is 361 anticipated that these EIDs will change infrequently if at all, since 362 the assignment of a LISP-MN's EID is envisioned to be a subscription 363 time event. The key point here is that the relatively fixed EID 364 allows the LISP-MN's transport connections to survive roaming events. 365 In particular, while the LISP-MN's EIDs are fixed during roaming 366 events, the LISP-MN's RLOC set will change. The RLOC set may be 367 comprised of both IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. 369 A LISP-MN is also provisioned with the address of a Map-Server and a 370 corresponding authentication key. Like the LISP-MN's EID, both the 371 Map-Server address and authentication key change very infrequently 372 (again, these are anticipated to be subscription time parameters). 373 Since the LISP LISP-MN's Map-Server is configured to advertise an 374 aggregated EID-prefix that covers the LISP-MN's EID, changes to the 375 LISP-MN's mapping are not propagated further into the mapping system 376 [RFC6836]. It is this property that provides for scalable fast 377 mobility. 379 A LISP-MN is also be provisioned with the address of a Map-Resolver. 380 A LISP-MN may also learn the address of a Map-Resolver though a 381 dynamic protocol such as DHCP [RFC2131]. 383 Finally, note that if, for some reason, a LISP-MN's EID is re- 384 provisioned, the LISP-MN's Map-Server address may also have to change 385 in order to keep LISP-MN's EID within the aggregate advertised by the 386 Map-Server (this is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2). 388 5.2. Control Plane Operation 390 A roaming event occurs when the LISP-MN receives a new RLOC. Because 391 the new address is a new RLOC from the LISP-MN's perspective, it must 392 update its EID-to-RLOC mapping with its Map-Server; it does this 393 using the Map-Register mechanism described in 394 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 396 A LISP-MN may want the Map-Server to respond on its behalf for a 397 variety of reasons, including minimizing control traffic on radio 398 links and minimizing battery utilization. A LISP-MN may instruct its 399 Map-Server to proxy respond to Map-Requests by setting the Proxy-Map- 400 Reply bit in the Map-Register message [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. In 401 this case the Map-Server responds with a non-authoritative Map-Reply 402 so that an ITR or PITR will know that the ETR didn't directly 403 respond. A Map-Server will proxy reply only for "registered" EID- 404 prefixes using the registered EID-prefix mask-length in proxy 405 replies. 407 Because the LISP-MN's Map-Server is pre-configured to advertise an 408 aggregate covering the LISP-MN's EID prefix, the database mapping 409 change associated with the roaming event is confined to the Map- 410 Server and those ITRs and PITRs that may have cached the previous 411 mapping. 413 5.3. Data Plane Operation 415 A key feature of LISP-MN control-plane design is the use of the Map- 416 Server as an anchor point; this allows control of the scope to which 417 changes to the mapping system must be propagated during roaming 418 events. 420 On the other hand, the LISP-MN data-plane design does not rely on 421 additional LISP infrastructure for communication between LISP nodes 422 (mobile or stationary). Data packets take the shortest path to and 423 from the LISP-MN to other LISP nodes; as noted above, low latency 424 shortest paths in the data-plane is an important goal for the LISP-MN 425 design (and is important for delay-sensitive applications like gaming 426 and voice-over-IP). Note that a LISP-MN will need additional 427 interworking infrastructure when talking to non-LISP sites [RFC6832]; 428 this is consistent with the design of any host at a LISP site which 429 talks to a host at a non-LISP site. 431 In general, the LISP-MN data-plane operates in the same manner as the 432 standard LISP data-plane with one exception: packets generated by a 433 LISP-MN which are not destined for the mapping system (i.e., those 434 sent to destination UDP port 4342) or the local network are LISP 435 encapsulated. Because data packets are always encapsulated to a 436 RLOC, packets travel on the shortest path from LISP-MN to another 437 LISP stationary or LISP-MN. When the LISP mobile node is sending 438 packets to a stationary or LISP-MN in a non-LISP site, it sends LISP- 439 encapsulated packets to a PETR which then decapsulates the packet and 440 forwards it to its destination. 442 6. Updating Remote Caches 444 A LISP-MN has five mechanisms it can use to cause the mappings cached 445 in remote ITRs and PITRs to be refreshed: 447 Map Versioning: If Map Versioning [RFC6834] is used, an ETR can 448 detect if an ITR is using the most recent database mapping. In 449 particular, when mobile node's ETR decapsulates a packet and 450 detects the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the 451 current version for its mapping, in invokes the SMR procedure 452 described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. In general, SMRs are 453 used to fix the out of sync mapping while Map-Versioning is used 454 to detect they are out of sync. [RFC6834] provides additional 455 details of the Map Versioning process. 457 Data Driven SMRs: An ETR may elect to send SMRs to those sites it 458 has been receiving encapsulated packets from. This will occur 459 when an ITR is sending to an old RLOC (for which there is one-to- 460 one mapping between EID-to-RLOC) and the ETR may not have had a 461 chance to send an SMR the ITR. 463 Setting Small TTL on Map Replies: The ETR (or Map Server) may set a 464 small Time to Live (TTL) on its mappings when responding to Map 465 Requests. The TTL value should be chosen such that changes in 466 mappings can be detected while minimizing control traffic. In 467 this case the ITR is a SN and the ETR is the MN. 469 Piggybacking Mapping Data: If an ITR and ETR are co-located, an ITR 470 may elect to send Map-Requests with piggybacked mapping data to 471 those sites in its map cache or to which it has recently 472 encapsulated data in order to inform the remote ITRs and PITRs of 473 the change. 475 Temporary PITR Caching: The ETR can keep a cache of PITRs that have 476 sent Map-Requests to it. The cache contains the RLOCs of the 477 PITRs so later when the locator-set of a LISP-MN changes, SMR 478 messages can be sent to all RLOCs in the PITR cache. This is an 479 example of a control-plane driven SMR procedure. 481 7. Protocol Operation 483 There are five distinct connectivity cases considered by the LISP-MN 484 design. The five mobility cases are: 486 LISP Mobile Node to a Stationary Node in a LISP Site. 488 LISP Mobile Node to a Non-LISP Site. 490 LISP Mobile Node to a LISP Mobile Node. 492 Non-LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node. 494 LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node. 496 The remainder of this section covers these cases in detail. 498 7.1. LISP Mobile Node to a Stationary Node in a LISP Site 500 After a roaming event, a LISP-MN must immediately register its new 501 EID-to-RLOC mapping with its configured Map-Server(s). This allows 502 LISP sites sending Map-Requests to the LISP-MN to receive the current 503 mapping. In addition, remote ITRs and PITRs may have cached mappings 504 that are no longer valid. These ITRs and PITRs must be informed that 505 the mapping has changed. See Section 6 for a discussion of methods 506 for updating remote caches. 508 7.1.1. Handling Unidirectional Traffic 510 A problem may arise when traffic is flowing unidirectionally between 511 LISP sites. This can arise in communication flows between PITRs and 512 LISP sites or when a site's ITRs and ETRs are not co-located. In 513 these cases, data-plane techniques such as Map-Versioning and Data- 514 Driven SMRs can't be used to update the remote caches. 516 For example, consider the unidirectional packet flow case depicted in 517 Figure 1. In this case X is a non-LISP enabled SN (i.e., connected 518 to the Internet) and Y is a LISP MN. Data traffic from X to Y will 519 flow through a PITR. When Y changes its mapping (for example, during 520 a mobility event), the PITR must update its mapping for Y. However, 521 since data traffic from Y to X is unidirectional and does not flow 522 though the PITR, it can not rely data traffic from Y to X to signal a 523 mapping change at Y. In this case, the Y must use one or more of the 524 techniques described in Section 6 to update the PITR's cache. Note 525 that if Y has only one RLOC, then the PITR has to know when to send a 526 Map-Request based on its existing state; thus it can only rely on the 527 TTL on the existing mapping. 529 +-------------------------------------------+ 530 | | 531 | | DP 532 v DP DP MQ | 533 X -----> Internet -----> PITR ------------> Y 534 ^ LEDP | 535 | | 536 +-----------------+ 537 MR 539 DP: Data Packet 540 LEDP: LISP Encapsulated Data Packet 541 MQ: Map Request 542 MR: Map Reply 544 Figure 1: Unidirectional Packet Flow 546 7.2. LISP Mobile Node to a Non-LISP Stationary Node 548 LISP-MNs use the LISP Interworking infrastructure (specifically a 549 PETR) to reach non-LISP sites. In general, the PETR will be co- 550 located with the LISP-MN's Map-Server. This ensures that the LISP 551 packets being decapsulated are from sources that have Map-Registered 552 to the Map-Server. Note that when a LISP-MN roams it continues to 553 uses its configured PETR and Map-Server which can have the effect of 554 adding stretch to packets sent from a LISP-MN to a non-LISP 555 destination. 557 7.3. LISP Mobile Node to LISP Mobile Node 559 LISP-MN to LISP-MN communication is an instance of LISP-to-LISP 560 communication with three sub-cases: 562 o Both LISP-MNs are stationary (Section 7.1). 564 o Only one LISP-MN is roaming (Section 7.3.1). 566 o Both LISP-MNs are roaming. The case is analogous to the case 567 described in Section 7.3.1. 569 7.3.1. One Mobile Node is Roaming 571 In this case, the roaming LISP-MN can find the stationary LISP-MN by 572 sending Map-Request for its EID-prefix. After receiving a Map-Reply, 573 the roaming LISP-MN can encapsulate data packets directly to the non- 574 roaming LISP-MN node. 576 The roaming LISP-MN, on the other hand, must update its Map-Server 577 with the new mapping data as described in Section 7.1. It should 578 also use the cache management techniques described in Section 6 to 579 provide for timely updates of remote caches. Once the roaming LISP- 580 MN has updated its Map-Server, the non-roaming LISP-MN can retrieve 581 the new mapping data (if it hasn't already received an updated 582 mapping via one of the mechanisms described in Section 6) and the 583 stationary LISP-MN can encapsulate data directly to the roaming LISP- 584 MN. 586 7.4. Non-LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node 588 When a stationary ITR is talking to a non-LISP site, it may forward 589 packets natively (unencapsulated) to the non-LISP site. This will 590 occur when the ITR has received a negative Map Reply for a prefix 591 covering the non-LISP site's address with the Natively-Forward action 592 bit set [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. As a result, packets may be 593 natively forwarded to non-LISP sites by an ITR (the return path will 594 through a PITR, however, since the packet flow will be non-LISP site 595 to LISP site). 597 A LISP-MN behaves differently when talking to non-LISP sites. In 598 particular, the LISP-MN always encapsulates packets to a PETR. The 599 PETR then decapsulates the packet and forwards it natively to its 600 destination. As in the stationary case, packets from the non-LISP 601 site host return to the LISP-MN through a PITR. Since traffic 602 forwarded through a PITR is unidirectional, a LISP-MN should use the 603 cache management techniques described in Section 7.1.1. 605 7.5. LISP Site to LISP Mobile Node 607 When a LISP-MN roams onto a new network, it needs to update the 608 caches in any ITRs that might have stale mappings. This is analogous 609 to the case in that a stationary LISP site is renumbered; in that 610 case ITRs that have cached the old mapping must be updated. This is 611 done using the techniques described in Section 6. 613 When a LISP router in a stationary site is performing both ITR and 614 ETR functions, a LISP-MN can update the stationary site's map-caches 615 using techniques described in Section 6. However, when the LISP 616 router in the stationary site is performing is only ITR 617 functionality, these techniques can not be used because the ITR is 618 not receiving data traffic from the LISP-MN. In this case, the LISP- 619 MN should use the technique described in Section 7.1.1. In 620 particular, a LISP-MN should set the TTL on the mappings in its Map- 621 Replies to be in 1-2 minute range. 623 8. Multicast and Mobility 625 Since a LISP-MN performs both ITR and ETR functionality, it should 626 also perform a lightweight version of multicast ITR/ETR functionality 627 described in [RFC6831]. When a LISP-MN originates a multicast 628 packet, it will encapsulate the packet with a multicast header, where 629 the source address in the outer header is one of it's RLOC addresses 630 and the destination address in the outer header is the group address 631 from the inner header. The interfaces in which the encapsulated 632 packet is sent on is discussed below. 634 To not require PIM functionality in the LISP-MN as documented in 635 [RFC6831], the LISP-MN resorts to using encapsulated IGMP for joining 636 groups and for determining which interfaces are used for packet 637 origination. When a LISP-MN joins a group, it obtains the map-cache 638 entry for the (S-EID,G) it is joining. It then builds a IGMP report 639 encoding (S-EID,G) and then LISP encapsulates it with UDP port 4341. 640 It selects an RLOC from the map-cache entry to send the encapsulated 641 IGMP Report. 643 When other LISP-MNs are joining an (S-EID,G) entry where the S-EID is 644 for a LISP-MN, the encapsulated IGMP Report will be received by the 645 LISP-MN multicast source. The LISP-MN multicast source will remember 646 the interfaces the encapsulated IGMP Report is received on and build 647 an outgoing interface list for it's own (S-EID,G) entry. If the list 648 is greater than one, then the LISP-MN is doing replication on the 649 source-based tree for which it is the root. 651 When other LISP routers are joining (S-EID,G), they are instructed to 652 send PIM encapsulated Join-Prune messages. However, to keep the 653 LISP-MN as simple as possible, the LISP-MN will not be able to 654 process encapsulated PIM Join-Prune messages. Because the map-cache 655 entry will have a MN-bit indicating the entry is for a LISP-MN, the 656 LISP router will send IGMP encapsulated IGMP Reports instead. 658 When the LISP-MN is sending a multicast packet, it can operate in two 659 modes, multicast-origination-mode or unicast-origination-mode. When 660 in multicast-origination-mode, the LISP-MN multicast-source can 661 encapsulate a multicast packet in another multicast packet, as 662 described above. When in unicast-origination-mode, the LISP-MN 663 multicast source encapsulates the multicast packet into a unicast 664 packet and sends a packet to each encapsulated IGMP Report sender. 666 These modes are provided depending on whether or not the mobile 667 node's network it is currently connected can support IP multicast. 669 9. RLOC Considerations 671 This section documents cases where the expected operation of the 672 LISP-MN design may require special treatment. 674 9.1. Mobile Node's RLOC is an EID 676 When a LISP-MN roams into a LISP site, the "RLOC" it is assigned may 677 be an address taken from the site's EID-prefix. In this case, the 678 LISP-MN will Map-Register a mapping from its statically assigned EID 679 to the "RLOC" it received from the site. This scenario creates 680 another level of indirection: the mapping from the LISP-MN's EID to a 681 site assigned EID. The mapping from the LISP-MN's EID to the site 682 assigned EID allow the LISP-MN to be reached by sending packets using 683 the mapping for the EID; packets are delivered to site's EIDs use the 684 same LISP infrastructure that all LISP hosts use to reach the site. 686 A packet egressing a LISP site destined for a LISP-MN that resides in 687 a LISP site will have three headers: an inner header that is built by 688 the host and is used by transport connections, a middle header that 689 is built by the site's ITR and is used by the destination's ETR to 690 find the current topological location of the LISP-MN, and an outer 691 header (also built by the site's ITR) that is used to forward packets 692 between the sites. 694 Consider a site A with EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 and RLOC A and a site B 695 with EID-prefix 2.0.0.0/8 and RLOC B. Suppose that a host S in site 696 A with EID 1.0.0.1 wants to talk to a LISP LISP-MN MN that has 697 registered a mapping from EID 240.0.0.1 to "RLOC" 2.0.0.2 (where 698 2.0.0.2 allocated from site B's EID prefix, 2.0.0.0/8 in this case). 699 This situation is depicted in Figure 2. 701 EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 EID-prefix 2.0.0.0/8 702 S has EID 1.0.0.1 MN has EID 240.0.0.1 703 MN has RLOC 2.0.0.2 704 -------------- -------------- 705 / \ --------------- / \ 706 | ITR-A' | / \ | ETR-B' | 707 | | | | | | 708 | S | | Internet | | MN | 709 | \ | | | | ^ | 710 | \ | | | | / | 711 | --> ITR-A | \ / | ETR-B ---- | 712 \ / --------------- \ / 713 -------------- -------------- 714 | | | ^ ^ ^ 715 | | | | | | 716 | | | outer-header: A -> B | | | 717 | | +---------------------------------------+ | | 718 | | RLOCs used to find which site MN resides | | 719 | | | | 720 | | | | 721 | | middle-header: A -> 2.0.0.2 | | 722 | +------------------------------------------------+ | 723 | RLOCs used to find topological location of MN | 724 | | 725 | | 726 | inner-header: 1.0.0.1 -> 240.0.0.1 | 727 +-----------------------------------------------------------+ 728 EIDs used for TCP connection 730 Figure 2: Mobile Node Roaming into a LISP Site 732 In this case, the inner header is used for transport connections, the 733 middle header is used to find topological location of the LISP-MN 734 (the LISP-MN Map-Registers the mapping 240.0.0.1 -> 2.0.0.2 when it 735 roams into site B), and the outer header is used to move packets 736 between sites (A and B in Figure 2). 738 In summary, when a LISP-MN roams into a LISP site and receives a new 739 address (e.g., via DHCP) that is part of the site's EID space, the 740 following sequence occurs: 742 1. The LISP-MN in the LISP site (call it Inside) registers its new 743 RLOC (which is actually part of the sites EID prefix) to its map- 744 server. Call its permanent EID E and the EID it DHCPs D. So it 745 registers a mapping that looks like E->D. 747 2. The MN which is outside (call it Outside) sends a map request for 748 inside's EID (E) and receives D (plus its policy). Outside 749 realizes that D is an EID and sends a map request for D. This 750 will return the site's RLOCs (by its ETR). Call this R. 752 3. Outside then double encapsulates the outbound packet with the 753 inner destination being D and the outer destination being R. 755 4. The packet then finds its way to R, which strips the outer header 756 and the packet is routed to D in the domain to Inside. Inside 757 decapsulates the packet to serve the inner header to the 758 application. 760 Note that both D and R could be returned to Inside in one query, so 761 as not to incur the additional RTT. 763 10. LISP Mobile Nodes behind NAT Devices 765 When a LISP-MN resides behind a NAT device, it will be allocated a 766 private RLOC address. The private RLOC address is used as the source 767 address in the outer header for LISP encapsulated packets. The NAT 768 device will translate the source address and source UDP port in the 769 LISP encapsulated packet. The NAT device will keep this translated 770 state so when packets arrive from the public side of the NAT, they 771 can be translated back to the stored state. For remote LISP ITRs, 772 PITRs, and RTRs, will need to know the translated RLOC address and 773 port so they can encapsulate to the LISP-MN traversing the NAT 774 device. 776 Procedures a LISP-MN should follow when it resides behind a NAT, will 777 follow the LISP xTRs procedures in specification 778 [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]. 780 11. Mobility Example 782 This section provides an example of how the LISP-MN is integrated 783 into the base LISP Design [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 785 11.1. Provisioning 787 The LISP-MN needs to be configured with the following information: 789 An EID, assigned to its loopback address 791 A key for map-registration 793 An IP address of a Map-Resolver (this could be learned 794 dynamically) 795 An IP address of its Map-Server and Proxy ETR 797 11.2. Registration 799 After a LISP roams to a new network, it must immediately register its 800 new mapping this new RLOC (and associated priority/weight data) with 801 its Map-Server. 803 The LISP-MN may chose to set the 'proxy' bit in the map-register to 804 indicate that it desires its Map-Server to answer map-requests on its 805 behalf. 807 12. LISP Implementation in a Mobile Node 809 This section will describe a possible approach for developing a 810 lightweight LISP-MN implementation. A LISP-MN will implement a LISP 811 sub-layer inside of the IP layer of the protocol stack. The sub- 812 layer resides between the IP layer and the link-layer. 814 For outgoing unicast packets, once the header that contains EIDs is 815 built and right before an outgoing interface is chosen, a LISP header 816 is prepended to the outgoing packet. The source address is set to 817 the local RLOC address (obtained by DHCP perhaps) and the destination 818 address is set to the RLOC associated with the destination EID from 819 the IP layer. To obtain the RLOC for the EID, the LISP-MN maintains 820 a map-cache for destination sites or destination LISP-MNs to which it 821 is currently talking. The map-cache lookup is performed by doing a 822 longest match lookup on the destination address the IP layer put in 823 the first IP header. Once the new header is prepended, a route table 824 lookup is performed to find the interface in which to send the packet 825 or the default router interface is used to send the packet. 827 When the map-cache does not exist for a destination, the mobile node 828 may queue or drop the packet while it sends a Map-Request to it's 829 configured Map-Resolver. Once a Map-Reply is returned, the map-cache 830 entry stores the EID-to-RLOC state. If the RLOC state is empty in 831 the Map-Reply, the Map-Reply is known as a Negative Map-Reply in 832 which case the map-cache entry is created with a single RLOC, the 833 RLOC of the configured Map-Server for the LISP-MN. The Map-Server 834 that serves the LISP-MN also acts as a Proxy ETR (PETR) so packets 835 can get delivered to hosts in non-LISP sites to which the LISP-MN is 836 sending. 838 For incoming unicast packets, the LISP sub-layer simply decapsulates 839 the packets and delivers to the IP layer. The loc-reach-bits can be 840 processed by the LISP sub-layer. Specifically, the source EID from 841 the packet is looked up in the map-cache and if the loc-reach-bits 842 settings have changed, store the loc-reach-bits from the packet and 843 note which RLOCs for the map-cache entry should not be used. 845 In terms of the LISP-MN detecting which RLOCs from each stored map- 846 cache entry is reachable, it can use any of the Locator Reachability 847 Algorithms from [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 849 A background task that runs off a timer should be run so the LISP-MN 850 can send periodic Map-Register messages to the Map-Server. The Map- 851 Register message should also be triggered when the LISP-MN detects a 852 change in IP address for a given interface. The LISP-MN should send 853 Map-Registers to the same Map-Register out each of it's operational 854 links. This will provide for robustness on radio links with which 855 the mobile node is associated. 857 A LISP-MN receives a Map-Request when it has Map-Registered to a Map- 858 Server with the Proxy-bit set to 0. This means that the LISP-MN 859 wishes to send authoritative Map-Replies for Map-Requests that are 860 targeted at the LISP-MN. If the Proxy-bit is set when the LISP-MN 861 registers, then the Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map- 862 Replies on behalf of the LISP-MN. In this case, the Map-Server never 863 encapsulates Map-Requests to the LISP-MN. The LISP-MN can save 864 resources by not receiving Map-Requests (note that the LISP-MN will 865 receive SMRs which have the same format as Map-Requests). 867 To summarize, a LISP sub-layer should implement: 869 o Encapsulating and decapsulating data packets. 871 o Sending and receiving of Map-Request control messages. 873 o Receiving and optionally sending Map-Replies. 875 o Sending Map-Register messages periodically. 877 The key point about the LISP sub-layer is that no other components in 878 the protocol stack need changing; just the insertion of this sub- 879 layer between the IP layer and the interface layer-2 encapsulation/ 880 decapsulation layer. 882 13. Security Considerations 884 Security for the LISP-MN design builds upon the security fundamentals 885 found in LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for data-plane security and 886 the LISP Map Server [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] registration security. 887 Security issues unique to the LISP-MN design are considered below. 889 13.1. Proxy ETR Hijacking 891 The Proxy ETR (or PETR) that a LISP-MN uses as its destination for 892 non-LISP traffic must use the security association used by the 893 registration process outlined in Section 5.2 and explained in detail 894 in the LISP-MS specification [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. These 895 measures prevent third party injection of LISP encapsulated traffic 896 into a Proxy ETR. Importantly, a PETR must not decapsulate packets 897 from non-registered RLOCs. 899 13.2. LISP Mobile Node using an EID as its RLOC 901 For LISP packets to be sent to a LISP-MN which has an EID assigned to 902 it as an RLOC as described in Section 9.1), the LISP site must allow 903 for incoming and outgoing LISP data packets. Firewalls and stateless 904 packet filtering mechanisms must be configured to allow UDP port 4341 905 and UDP port 4342 packets. 907 14. IANA Considerations 909 This document is requesting bit allocations in the Map-Request and 910 Map-Register messages. The registry is introduced in 911 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and named "LISP Bit Flags". This document 912 is adding bits to the sub-registry "Map-Request Header Bits' and 913 "Map-Register Header Bits". A LISP mobile-node will set the m-bit to 914 1 when it sends Map-Request and Map-Register messages. 916 Sub-Registry: Map-Request Header Bits: 918 0 1 2 3 919 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 1 920 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 921 |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|m|R| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count | 922 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 924 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-----------------+ 925 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 926 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-----------------+ 927 | m | map-request-m | 10 | Mobile Node Bit | 928 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-----------------+ 930 LISP Map-Request Header Bits 932 Sub-Registry: Map-Register Header Bits: 934 0 1 2 3 935 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 1 936 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 937 |Type=3 |P|S|R| Reserved |E|T|a|m|M| Record Count | 938 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 940 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 941 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 942 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 943 | m | map-register-m | 22 | LISP Mobile Node Bit | 944 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 946 LISP Map-Register Header Bits 948 15. References 950 15.1. Normative References 952 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 953 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 954 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 955 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-30 (work in progress), 956 January 2020. 958 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 959 Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- 960 Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- 961 Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 (work in progress), 962 January 2020. 964 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., 965 and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 966 BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, 967 . 969 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", 970 RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997, 971 . 973 [RFC3344] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", 974 RFC 3344, DOI 10.17487/RFC3344, August 2002, 975 . 977 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 978 in IPv6", RFC 3775, DOI 10.17487/RFC3775, June 2004, 979 . 981 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 982 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 983 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 984 . 986 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 987 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 988 Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 989 2013, . 991 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 992 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 993 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 994 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 995 . 997 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 998 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 999 DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, 1000 . 1002 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 1003 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 1004 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, 1005 January 2013, . 1007 15.2. Informative References 1009 [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] 1010 Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Maino, F., 1011 Portoles-Comeras, M., Skriver, J., and C. White, "NAT 1012 traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal-16 1013 (work in progress), June 2019. 1015 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 1017 Albert Cabellos, Noel Chiappa, Pierre Francois, Michael Menth, Andrew 1018 Partan, Chris White and John Zwiebel provided insightful comments on 1019 the mobile node concept and on this document. A special thanks goes 1020 to Mary Nickum for her attention to detail and effort in editing 1021 early versions of this document. 1023 Appendix B. Document Change Log 1024 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-07 1026 o Posted March 2020. 1028 o Update references and document timer. 1030 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-06 1032 o Posted September 2019. 1034 o Update references and document timer. 1036 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-05 1038 o Posted March IETF week 2019. 1040 o Update references and document timer. 1042 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 1044 o Posted October 2018. 1046 o Make IANA Considerations section formatted like 1047 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 1049 o Change all references for RFC6830 to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 1050 and for RFC6833 to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 1052 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-03 1054 o Posted October 2018. 1056 o Request m-bit allocation in Map-Register message in IANA 1057 Considerations section. 1059 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-02 1061 o Posted April 2018. 1063 o Update document timer and references. 1065 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 1067 o Posted October 2017. 1069 o Update document timer and references. 1071 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 1073 o Posted April 2017. 1075 o Changed draft-meyer-lisp-mn-16 to working group document. 1077 Authors' Addresses 1079 Dino Farinacci 1080 lispers.net 1081 San Jose, CA 95134 1082 USA 1084 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 1086 Darrel Lewis 1087 cisco Systems 1088 Tasman Drive 1089 San Jose, CA 95134 1090 USA 1092 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 1094 David Meyer 1095 1-4-5.net 1096 USA 1098 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 1100 Chris White 1101 Logical Elegance, LLC. 1102 San Jose, CA 95134 1103 USA 1105 Email: chris@logicalelegance.com