idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-mn-08.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 (August 24, 2020) is 1340 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 984, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-33 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-28 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3344 (Obsoleted by RFC 5944) ** Obsolete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reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6834 (Obsoleted by RFC 9302) == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal-17 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-simple-nat-00 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: February 25, 2021 cisco Systems 6 D. Meyer 7 1-4-5.net 8 C. White 9 Logical Elegance, LLC. 10 August 24, 2020 12 LISP Mobile Node 13 draft-ietf-lisp-mn-08 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 February 25, 2021. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 93 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 94 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 95 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 96 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 97 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 98 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 99 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 100 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 101 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 102 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 104 1. Introduction 106 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 107 specifies a design and mechanism for replacing the addresses 108 currently used in the Internet with two separate name spaces: 109 Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), used within sites, and Routing Locators 110 (RLOCs), used by the transit networks that make up the Internet 111 infrastructure. To achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol 112 mechanisms for mapping from EIDs to RLOCs. The mapping 113 infrastructure is comprised of LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers 114 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and is tied together with LISP+ALT 115 [RFC6836]. 117 This document specifies the behavior of a new LISP network element: 118 the LISP Mobile Node. The LISP Mobile Node implements a subset of 119 the standard Ingress Tunnel Router and Egress Tunnel Router 120 functionality [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Design goals for the LISP 121 mobility design include: 123 o Allowing TCP connections to stay alive while roaming. 125 o Allowing the mobile node to communicate with other mobile nodes 126 while either or both are roaming. 128 o Allowing the mobile node to multi-home (i.e., use multiple 129 interfaces concurrently). 131 o Allowing the mobile node to be a server. That is, any mobile node 132 or stationary node can find and connect to a mobile node as a 133 server. 135 o Providing shortest path bidirectional data paths between a mobile 136 node and any other stationary or mobile node. 138 o Not requiring fine-grained routes in the core network to support 139 mobility. 141 o Not requiring a home-agent, foreign agent or other data plane 142 network elements to support mobility. Note since the LISP mobile 143 node design does not require these data plane elements, there is 144 no triangle routing of data packets as is found in Mobile IP 145 [RFC3344]. 147 o Not requiring new IPv6 extension headers to avoid triangle routing 148 [RFC3775]. 150 The LISP Mobile Node design requires the use of the LISP Map-Server 151 [RFC6836] and LISP Interworking [RFC6832] technology to allow a LISP 152 mobile node to roam and to be discovered in an efficient and scalable 153 manner. The use of Map-Server technology is discussed further in 154 Section 5. 156 The protocol mechanisms described in this document apply those cases 157 in which a node's IP address changes frequently. For example, when a 158 mobile node roams, it is typically assigned a new IP address. 159 Similarly, a broadband subscriber may have its address change 160 frequently; as such, a broadband subscriber can use the LISP Mobile 161 Node mechanisms defined in this specification. 163 The remainder of this document is organized as follows: Section 2 164 defines the terms used in this document. Section 3 provides a 165 overview of salient features of the LISP Mobile Node design, and 166 Section 4 describes design requirements for a LISP Mobile Node. 167 Section 5 provides the detail of LISP Mobile Node data and control 168 plane operation, and Section 6 discusses options for updating remote 169 caches in the presence of unidirectional traffic flows. Section 7 170 specifies how the LISP Mobile Node protocol operates. Section 8 171 specifies multicast operation for LISP mobile nodes. Section 9 and 172 Section 12 outline other considerations for the LISP-MN design and 173 implementation. Finally, Section 13 outlines the security 174 considerations for a LISP mobile node. 176 2. Definition of Terms 178 This section defines the terms used in this document. 180 Stationary Node (SN): A non-mobile node who's IP address changes 181 infrequently. That is, its IP address does not change as 182 frequently as a fast roaming mobile hand-set or a broadband 183 connection and therefore the EID to RLOC mapping is relatively 184 static. 186 Endpoint ID (EID): This is the traditional LISP EID 187 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], and is the address that a LISP mobile 188 node uses as its address for transport connections. A LISP mobile 189 node never changes its EID, which is typically a /32 or /128 190 prefix and is assigned to a loopback interface. Note that the 191 mobile node can have multiple EIDs, and these EIDs can be from 192 different address families. 194 Routing Locator (RLOC): This is the traditional LISP RLOC, and is in 195 general a routable address that can be used to reach a mobile 196 node. Note that there are cases in which an mobile node may 197 receive an address that it thinks is an RLOC (perhaps via DHCP) 198 which is either an EID or an RFC 1918 address [RFC1918]. This 199 could happen if, for example, if the mobile node roams into a LISP 200 domain or a domain behind a Network Address Translator (NAT)) See 201 Section 10 for more details. 203 Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that accepts an IP 204 packet with a single IP header (more precisely, an IP packet that 205 does not contain a LISP header). The router treats this "inner" 206 IP destination address as an EID and performs an EID-to-RLOC 207 mapping lookup. The router then prepends an "outer" IP header 208 with one of its globally routable RLOCs in the source address 209 field and the result of the mapping lookup in the destination 210 address field. Note that this destination RLOC may be an 211 intermediate, proxy device that has better knowledge of the EID- 212 to-RLOC mapping closer to the destination EID. In general, an ITR 213 receives IP packets from site end-systems on one side and sends 214 LISP-encapsulated IP packets toward the Internet on the other 215 side. A LISP mobile node, however, when acting as an ITR LISP 216 encapsulates all packet that it originates. 218 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP 219 packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is 220 one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and 221 forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In 222 general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the 223 Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site 224 end-systems on the other side. A LISP mobile node, when acting as 225 an ETR, decapsulates packets that are then typically processed by 226 the mobile node. 228 Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR): PITRs are used to provide 229 interconnectivity between sites that use LISP EIDs and those that 230 do not. They act as a gateway between the Legacy Internet and the 231 LISP enabled Network. A given PITR advertises one or more highly 232 aggregated EID prefixes into the public Internet and acts as the 233 ITR for traffic received from the public Internet. Proxy Ingress 234 Tunnel Routers are described in [RFC6832]. 236 Proxy Egress Tunnel Router (PETR): An infrastructure element used to 237 decapsulate packets sent from mobile nodes to non-LISP sites. 238 Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers are described in [RFC6832]. 240 LISP Mobile Node (LISP-MN): A LISP capable fast roaming mobile hand- 241 set. 243 Map-cache: A data structure which contains an EID-prefix, its 244 associated RLOCs, and the associated policy. Map-caches are 245 typically found in ITRs and PITRs. 247 Negative Map-Reply: A Negative Map-Reply is a Map-Reply that 248 contains a coarsely aggregated non-LISP prefix. Negative Map- 249 Replies are typically generated by Map-Resolvers, and are used to 250 inform an ITR (mobile or stationary) that a site is not a LISP 251 site. A LISP mobile node encapsulate packets to destinations 252 covered by the negative Map-Reply are encapsulated to a PETR. 254 Roaming Event: A Roaming Event occurs when there is a change in a 255 LISP mobile node's RLOC set. 257 3. Design Overview 259 The LISP-MN design described in this document uses the Map-Server/ 260 Map-Resolver service interface in conjunction with a light-weight 261 ITR/ETR implementation in the LISP-MN to provide scalable fast 262 mobility. The LISP-MN control-plane uses a Map-Server as an anchor 263 point, which provides control-plane scalability. In addition, the 264 LISP-MN data-plane takes advantage of shortest path routing and 265 therefore does not increase packet delivery latency. 267 4. Design Requirements 269 This section outlines the design requirements for a LISP-MN, and is 270 divided into User Requirements (Section 4.1) and Network Requirements 271 (Section 4.2). 273 4.1. User Requirements 275 This section describes the user-level functionality provided by a 276 LISP-MN. 278 Transport Connection Survivability: The LISP-MN design must allow a 279 LISP-MN to roam while keeping transport connections alive. 281 Simultaneous Roaming: The LISP-MN design must allow a LISP-MN to 282 talk to another LISP-MN while both are roaming. 284 Multihoming: The LISP-MN design must allow for simultaneous use of 285 multiple Internet connections by a LISP-MN. In addition, the 286 design must allow for the LISP mobile node to specify ingress 287 traffic engineering policies as documented in 289 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. That is, the LISP-MN must be able to 290 specify both active/active and active/passive policies for ingress 291 traffic. 293 Shortest Path Data Plane: The LISP-MN design must allow for shortest 294 path bidirectional traffic between a LISP-MN and a stationary 295 node, and between a LISP-MN and another LISP-MN (i.e., without 296 triangle routing in the data path). This provides a low-latency 297 data path between the LISP-MN and the nodes that it is 298 communicating with. 300 4.2. Network Requirements 302 This section describes the network functionality that the LISP-MN 303 design provides to a LISP-MN. 305 Routing System Scalability: The LISP-MN design must not require 306 injection of fine-grained routes into the core network. 308 Mapping System Scalability: The LISP-MN design must not require 309 additional state in the mapping system. In particular, any 310 mapping state required to support LISP mobility must BE confined 311 to the LISP-MN's Map-Server and the ITRs which are talking to the 312 LISP-MN. 314 Component Reuse: The LISP-MN design must use existing LISP 315 infrastructure components. These include map server, map 316 resolver, and interworking infrastructure components. 318 Home Agent/Foreign Agent: The LISP-MN design must not require the 319 use of home-agent or foreign-agent infrastructure components 320 [RFC3344]. 322 Readdressing: The LISP-MN design must not require TCP connections to 323 be reset when the mobile node roams. In particular, since the IP 324 address associated with a transport connection will not change as 325 the mobile node roams, TCP connections will not reset. 327 5. LISP Mobile Node Operation 329 The LISP-MN design is built from three existing LISP components: A 330 lightweight LISP implementation that runs in an LISP-MN, and the 331 existing Map-Server [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and Interworking 332 [RFC6832] infrastructures. A LISP mobile node typically sends and 333 receives LISP encapsulated packets (exceptions include management 334 protocols such as DHCP). 336 The LISP-MN design makes a single mobile node look like a LISP site 337 as described in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] by implementing ITR and 338 ETR functionality. Note that one subtle difference between standard 339 ITR behavior and LISP-MN is that the LISP-MN encapsulates all non- 340 local, non-LISP site destined outgoing packets to a PETR. 342 When a LISP-MN roams onto a new network, it receives a new RLOC. 343 Since the LISP-MN is the authoritative ETR for its EID-prefix, it 344 must Map-Register it's updated RLOC set. New sessions can be 345 established as soon as the registration process completes. Sessions 346 that are encapsulating to RLOCs that did not change during the 347 roaming event are not affected by the roaming event (or subsequent 348 mapping update). However, the LISP-MN must update the ITRs and PITRs 349 that have cached a previous mapping. It does this using the 350 techniques described in Section 6. 352 5.1. Addressing Architecture 354 A LISP-MN is typically provisioned with one or more EIDs that it uses 355 for all transport connections. LISP-MN EIDs are provisioned from 356 blocks reserved from mobile nodes much the way mobile phone numbers 357 are provisioned today (such that they do not overlap with the EID 358 space of any enterprise). These EIDs can be either IPv4 or IPv6 359 addresses. For example, one EID might be for a public network while 360 another might be for a private network; in this case the "public" EID 361 will be associated with RLOCs from the public Internet, while the 362 "private" EID will be associated with private RLOCs. It is 363 anticipated that these EIDs will change infrequently if at all, since 364 the assignment of a LISP-MN's EID is envisioned to be a subscription 365 time event. The key point here is that the relatively fixed EID 366 allows the LISP-MN's transport connections to survive roaming events. 367 In particular, while the LISP-MN's EIDs are fixed during roaming 368 events, the LISP-MN's RLOC set will change. The RLOC set may be 369 comprised of both IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. 371 A LISP-MN is also provisioned with the address of a Map-Server and a 372 corresponding authentication key. Like the LISP-MN's EID, both the 373 Map-Server address and authentication key change very infrequently 374 (again, these are anticipated to be subscription time parameters). 375 Since the LISP LISP-MN's Map-Server is configured to advertise an 376 aggregated EID-prefix that covers the LISP-MN's EID, changes to the 377 LISP-MN's mapping are not propagated further into the mapping system 378 [RFC6836]. It is this property that provides for scalable fast 379 mobility. 381 A LISP-MN is also be provisioned with the address of a Map-Resolver. 382 A LISP-MN may also learn the address of a Map-Resolver though a 383 dynamic protocol such as DHCP [RFC2131]. 385 Finally, note that if, for some reason, a LISP-MN's EID is re- 386 provisioned, the LISP-MN's Map-Server address may also have to change 387 in order to keep LISP-MN's EID within the aggregate advertised by the 388 Map-Server (this is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2). 390 5.2. Control Plane Operation 392 A roaming event occurs when the LISP-MN receives a new RLOC. Because 393 the new address is a new RLOC from the LISP-MN's perspective, it must 394 update its EID-to-RLOC mapping with its Map-Server; it does this 395 using the Map-Register mechanism described in 396 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 398 A LISP-MN may want the Map-Server to respond on its behalf for a 399 variety of reasons, including minimizing control traffic on radio 400 links and minimizing battery utilization. A LISP-MN may instruct its 401 Map-Server to proxy respond to Map-Requests by setting the Proxy-Map- 402 Reply bit in the Map-Register message [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. In 403 this case the Map-Server responds with a non-authoritative Map-Reply 404 so that an ITR or PITR will know that the ETR didn't directly 405 respond. A Map-Server will proxy reply only for "registered" EID- 406 prefixes using the registered EID-prefix mask-length in proxy 407 replies. 409 Because the LISP-MN's Map-Server is pre-configured to advertise an 410 aggregate covering the LISP-MN's EID prefix, the database mapping 411 change associated with the roaming event is confined to the Map- 412 Server and those ITRs and PITRs that may have cached the previous 413 mapping. 415 5.3. Data Plane Operation 417 A key feature of LISP-MN control-plane design is the use of the Map- 418 Server as an anchor point; this allows control of the scope to which 419 changes to the mapping system must be propagated during roaming 420 events. 422 On the other hand, the LISP-MN data-plane design does not rely on 423 additional LISP infrastructure for communication between LISP nodes 424 (mobile or stationary). Data packets take the shortest path to and 425 from the LISP-MN to other LISP nodes; as noted above, low latency 426 shortest paths in the data-plane is an important goal for the LISP-MN 427 design (and is important for delay-sensitive applications like gaming 428 and voice-over-IP). Note that a LISP-MN will need additional 429 interworking infrastructure when talking to non-LISP sites [RFC6832]; 430 this is consistent with the design of any host at a LISP site which 431 talks to a host at a non-LISP site. 433 In general, the LISP-MN data-plane operates in the same manner as the 434 standard LISP data-plane with one exception: packets generated by a 435 LISP-MN which are not destined for the mapping system (i.e., those 436 sent to destination UDP port 4342) or the local network are LISP 437 encapsulated. Because data packets are always encapsulated to a 438 RLOC, packets travel on the shortest path from LISP-MN to another 439 LISP stationary or LISP-MN. When the LISP mobile node is sending 440 packets to a stationary or LISP-MN in a non-LISP site, it sends LISP- 441 encapsulated packets to a PETR which then decapsulates the packet and 442 forwards it to its destination. 444 6. Updating Remote Caches 446 A LISP-MN has five mechanisms it can use to cause the mappings cached 447 in remote ITRs and PITRs to be refreshed: 449 Map Versioning: If Map Versioning [RFC6834] is used, an ETR can 450 detect if an ITR is using the most recent database mapping. In 451 particular, when mobile node's ETR decapsulates a packet and 452 detects the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the 453 current version for its mapping, in invokes the SMR procedure 454 described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. In general, SMRs are 455 used to fix the out of sync mapping while Map-Versioning is used 456 to detect they are out of sync. [RFC6834] provides additional 457 details of the Map Versioning process. 459 Data Driven SMRs: An ETR may elect to send SMRs to those sites it 460 has been receiving encapsulated packets from. This will occur 461 when an ITR is sending to an old RLOC (for which there is one-to- 462 one mapping between EID-to-RLOC) and the ETR may not have had a 463 chance to send an SMR the ITR. 465 Setting Small TTL on Map Replies: The ETR (or Map Server) may set a 466 small Time to Live (TTL) on its mappings when responding to Map 467 Requests. The TTL value should be chosen such that changes in 468 mappings can be detected while minimizing control traffic. In 469 this case the ITR is a SN and the ETR is the MN. 471 Piggybacking Mapping Data: If an ITR and ETR are co-located, an ITR 472 may elect to send Map-Requests with piggybacked mapping data to 473 those sites in its map cache or to which it has recently 474 encapsulated data in order to inform the remote ITRs and PITRs of 475 the change. 477 Temporary PITR Caching: The ETR can keep a cache of PITRs that have 478 sent Map-Requests to it. The cache contains the RLOCs of the 479 PITRs so later when the locator-set of a LISP-MN changes, SMR 480 messages can be sent to all RLOCs in the PITR cache. This is an 481 example of a control-plane driven SMR procedure. 483 7. Protocol Operation 485 There are five distinct connectivity cases considered by the LISP-MN 486 design. The five mobility cases are: 488 LISP Mobile Node to a Stationary Node in a LISP Site. 490 LISP Mobile Node to a Non-LISP Site. 492 LISP Mobile Node to a LISP Mobile Node. 494 Non-LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node. 496 LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node. 498 The remainder of this section covers these cases in detail. 500 7.1. LISP Mobile Node to a Stationary Node in a LISP Site 502 After a roaming event, a LISP-MN must immediately register its new 503 EID-to-RLOC mapping with its configured Map-Server(s). This allows 504 LISP sites sending Map-Requests to the LISP-MN to receive the current 505 mapping. In addition, remote ITRs and PITRs may have cached mappings 506 that are no longer valid. These ITRs and PITRs must be informed that 507 the mapping has changed. See Section 6 for a discussion of methods 508 for updating remote caches. 510 7.1.1. Handling Unidirectional Traffic 512 A problem may arise when traffic is flowing unidirectionally between 513 LISP sites. This can arise in communication flows between PITRs and 514 LISP sites or when a site's ITRs and ETRs are not co-located. In 515 these cases, data-plane techniques such as Map-Versioning and Data- 516 Driven SMRs can't be used to update the remote caches. 518 For example, consider the unidirectional packet flow case depicted in 519 Figure 1. In this case X is a non-LISP enabled SN (i.e., connected 520 to the Internet) and Y is a LISP MN. Data traffic from X to Y will 521 flow through a PITR. When Y changes its mapping (for example, during 522 a mobility event), the PITR must update its mapping for Y. However, 523 since data traffic from Y to X is unidirectional and does not flow 524 though the PITR, it can not rely data traffic from Y to X to signal a 525 mapping change at Y. In this case, the Y must use one or more of the 526 techniques described in Section 6 to update the PITR's cache. Note 527 that if Y has only one RLOC, then the PITR has to know when to send a 528 Map-Request based on its existing state; thus it can only rely on the 529 TTL on the existing mapping. 531 +-------------------------------------------+ 532 | | 533 | | DP 534 v DP DP MQ | 535 X -----> Internet -----> PITR ------------> Y 536 ^ LEDP | 537 | | 538 +-----------------+ 539 MR 541 DP: Data Packet 542 LEDP: LISP Encapsulated Data Packet 543 MQ: Map Request 544 MR: Map Reply 546 Figure 1: Unidirectional Packet Flow 548 7.2. LISP Mobile Node to a Non-LISP Stationary Node 550 LISP-MNs use the LISP Interworking infrastructure (specifically a 551 PETR) to reach non-LISP sites. In general, the PETR will be co- 552 located with the LISP-MN's Map-Server. This ensures that the LISP 553 packets being decapsulated are from sources that have Map-Registered 554 to the Map-Server. Note that when a LISP-MN roams it continues to 555 uses its configured PETR and Map-Server which can have the effect of 556 adding stretch to packets sent from a LISP-MN to a non-LISP 557 destination. 559 7.3. LISP Mobile Node to LISP Mobile Node 561 LISP-MN to LISP-MN communication is an instance of LISP-to-LISP 562 communication with three sub-cases: 564 o Both LISP-MNs are stationary (Section 7.1). 566 o Only one LISP-MN is roaming (Section 7.3.1). 568 o Both LISP-MNs are roaming. The case is analogous to the case 569 described in Section 7.3.1. 571 7.3.1. One Mobile Node is Roaming 573 In this case, the roaming LISP-MN can find the stationary LISP-MN by 574 sending Map-Request for its EID-prefix. After receiving a Map-Reply, 575 the roaming LISP-MN can encapsulate data packets directly to the non- 576 roaming LISP-MN node. 578 The roaming LISP-MN, on the other hand, must update its Map-Server 579 with the new mapping data as described in Section 7.1. It should 580 also use the cache management techniques described in Section 6 to 581 provide for timely updates of remote caches. Once the roaming LISP- 582 MN has updated its Map-Server, the non-roaming LISP-MN can retrieve 583 the new mapping data (if it hasn't already received an updated 584 mapping via one of the mechanisms described in Section 6) and the 585 stationary LISP-MN can encapsulate data directly to the roaming LISP- 586 MN. 588 7.4. Non-LISP Site to a LISP Mobile Node 590 When a stationary ITR is talking to a non-LISP site, it may forward 591 packets natively (unencapsulated) to the non-LISP site. This will 592 occur when the ITR has received a negative Map Reply for a prefix 593 covering the non-LISP site's address with the Natively-Forward action 594 bit set [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. As a result, packets may be 595 natively forwarded to non-LISP sites by an ITR (the return path will 596 through a PITR, however, since the packet flow will be non-LISP site 597 to LISP site). 599 A LISP-MN behaves differently when talking to non-LISP sites. In 600 particular, the LISP-MN always encapsulates packets to a PETR. The 601 PETR then decapsulates the packet and forwards it natively to its 602 destination. As in the stationary case, packets from the non-LISP 603 site host return to the LISP-MN through a PITR. Since traffic 604 forwarded through a PITR is unidirectional, a LISP-MN should use the 605 cache management techniques described in Section 7.1.1. 607 7.5. LISP Site to LISP Mobile Node 609 When a LISP-MN roams onto a new network, it needs to update the 610 caches in any ITRs that might have stale mappings. This is analogous 611 to the case in that a stationary LISP site is renumbered; in that 612 case ITRs that have cached the old mapping must be updated. This is 613 done using the techniques described in Section 6. 615 When a LISP router in a stationary site is performing both ITR and 616 ETR functions, a LISP-MN can update the stationary site's map-caches 617 using techniques described in Section 6. However, when the LISP 618 router in the stationary site is performing is only ITR 619 functionality, these techniques can not be used because the ITR is 620 not receiving data traffic from the LISP-MN. In this case, the LISP- 621 MN should use the technique described in Section 7.1.1. In 622 particular, a LISP-MN should set the TTL on the mappings in its Map- 623 Replies to be in 1-2 minute range. 625 8. Multicast and Mobility 627 Since a LISP-MN performs both ITR and ETR functionality, it should 628 also perform a lightweight version of multicast ITR/ETR functionality 629 described in [RFC6831]. When a LISP-MN originates a multicast 630 packet, it will encapsulate the packet with a multicast header, where 631 the source address in the outer header is one of it's RLOC addresses 632 and the destination address in the outer header is the group address 633 from the inner header. The interfaces in which the encapsulated 634 packet is sent on is discussed below. 636 To not require PIM functionality in the LISP-MN as documented in 637 [RFC6831], the LISP-MN resorts to using encapsulated IGMP for joining 638 groups and for determining which interfaces are used for packet 639 origination. When a LISP-MN joins a group, it obtains the map-cache 640 entry for the (S-EID,G) it is joining. It then builds a IGMP report 641 encoding (S-EID,G) and then LISP encapsulates it with UDP port 4341. 642 It selects an RLOC from the map-cache entry to send the encapsulated 643 IGMP Report. 645 When other LISP-MNs are joining an (S-EID,G) entry where the S-EID is 646 for a LISP-MN, the encapsulated IGMP Report will be received by the 647 LISP-MN multicast source. The LISP-MN multicast source will remember 648 the interfaces the encapsulated IGMP Report is received on and build 649 an outgoing interface list for it's own (S-EID,G) entry. If the list 650 is greater than one, then the LISP-MN is doing replication on the 651 source-based tree for which it is the root. 653 When other LISP routers are joining (S-EID,G), they are instructed to 654 send PIM encapsulated Join-Prune messages. However, to keep the 655 LISP-MN as simple as possible, the LISP-MN will not be able to 656 process encapsulated PIM Join-Prune messages. Because the map-cache 657 entry will have a MN-bit indicating the entry is for a LISP-MN, the 658 LISP router will send IGMP encapsulated IGMP Reports instead. 660 When the LISP-MN is sending a multicast packet, it can operate in two 661 modes, multicast-origination-mode or unicast-origination-mode. When 662 in multicast-origination-mode, the LISP-MN multicast-source can 663 encapsulate a multicast packet in another multicast packet, as 664 described above. When in unicast-origination-mode, the LISP-MN 665 multicast source encapsulates the multicast packet into a unicast 666 packet and sends a packet to each encapsulated IGMP Report sender. 668 These modes are provided depending on whether or not the mobile 669 node's network it is currently connected can support IP multicast. 671 9. RLOC Considerations 673 This section documents cases where the expected operation of the 674 LISP-MN design may require special treatment. 676 9.1. Mobile Node's RLOC is an EID 678 When a LISP-MN roams into a LISP site, the "RLOC" it is assigned may 679 be an address taken from the site's EID-prefix. In this case, the 680 LISP-MN will Map-Register a mapping from its statically assigned EID 681 to the "RLOC" it received from the site. This scenario creates 682 another level of indirection: the mapping from the LISP-MN's EID to a 683 site assigned EID. The mapping from the LISP-MN's EID to the site 684 assigned EID allow the LISP-MN to be reached by sending packets using 685 the mapping for the EID; packets are delivered to site's EIDs use the 686 same LISP infrastructure that all LISP hosts use to reach the site. 688 A packet egressing a LISP site destined for a LISP-MN that resides in 689 a LISP site will have three headers: an inner header that is built by 690 the host and is used by transport connections, a middle header that 691 is built by the site's ITR and is used by the destination's ETR to 692 find the current topological location of the LISP-MN, and an outer 693 header (also built by the site's ITR) that is used to forward packets 694 between the sites. 696 Consider a site A with EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 and RLOC A and a site B 697 with EID-prefix 2.0.0.0/8 and RLOC B. Suppose that a host S in site 698 A with EID 1.0.0.1 wants to talk to a LISP LISP-MN MN that has 699 registered a mapping from EID 240.0.0.1 to "RLOC" 2.0.0.2 (where 700 2.0.0.2 allocated from site B's EID prefix, 2.0.0.0/8 in this case). 701 This situation is depicted in Figure 2. 703 EID-prefix 1.0.0.0/8 EID-prefix 2.0.0.0/8 704 S has EID 1.0.0.1 MN has EID 240.0.0.1 705 MN has RLOC 2.0.0.2 706 -------------- -------------- 707 / \ --------------- / \ 708 | ITR-A' | / \ | ETR-B' | 709 | | | | | | 710 | S | | Internet | | MN | 711 | \ | | | | ^ | 712 | \ | | | | / | 713 | --> ITR-A | \ / | ETR-B ---- | 714 \ / --------------- \ / 715 -------------- -------------- 716 | | | ^ ^ ^ 717 | | | | | | 718 | | | outer-header: A -> B | | | 719 | | +---------------------------------------+ | | 720 | | RLOCs used to find which site MN resides | | 721 | | | | 722 | | | | 723 | | middle-header: A -> 2.0.0.2 | | 724 | +------------------------------------------------+ | 725 | RLOCs used to find topological location of MN | 726 | | 727 | | 728 | inner-header: 1.0.0.1 -> 240.0.0.1 | 729 +-----------------------------------------------------------+ 730 EIDs used for TCP connection 732 Figure 2: Mobile Node Roaming into a LISP Site 734 In this case, the inner header is used for transport connections, the 735 middle header is used to find topological location of the LISP-MN 736 (the LISP-MN Map-Registers the mapping 240.0.0.1 -> 2.0.0.2 when it 737 roams into site B), and the outer header is used to move packets 738 between sites (A and B in Figure 2). 740 In summary, when a LISP-MN roams into a LISP site and receives a new 741 address (e.g., via DHCP) that is part of the site's EID space, the 742 following sequence occurs: 744 1. The LISP-MN in the LISP site (call it Inside) registers its new 745 RLOC (which is actually part of the sites EID prefix) to its map- 746 server. Call its permanent EID E and the EID it DHCPs D. So it 747 registers a mapping that looks like E->D. 749 2. The MN which is outside (call it Outside) sends a map request for 750 inside's EID (E) and receives D (plus its policy). Outside 751 realizes that D is an EID and sends a map request for D. This 752 will return the site's RLOCs (by its ETR). Call this R. 754 3. Outside then double encapsulates the outbound packet with the 755 inner destination being D and the outer destination being R. 757 4. The packet then finds its way to R, which strips the outer header 758 and the packet is routed to D in the domain to Inside. Inside 759 decapsulates the packet to serve the inner header to the 760 application. 762 Note that both D and R could be returned to Inside in one query, so 763 as not to incur the additional RTT. 765 10. LISP Mobile Nodes behind NAT Devices 767 When a LISP-MN resides behind a NAT device, it will be allocated a 768 private RLOC address. The private RLOC address is used as the source 769 address in the outer header for LISP encapsulated packets. The NAT 770 device will translate the source address and source UDP port in the 771 LISP encapsulated packet. The NAT device will keep this translated 772 state so when packets arrive from the public side of the NAT, they 773 can be translated back to the stored state. For remote LISP ITRs, 774 PITRs, and RTRs, will need to know the translated RLOC address and 775 port so they can encapsulate to the LISP-MN traversing the NAT 776 device. 778 Procedures a LISP-MN should follow when it resides behind a NAT, will 779 follow the LISP xTRs procedures in specification 780 [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]. There are LISP-MN implementations 781 that follow procedures in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-simple-nat]. 783 11. Mobility Example 785 This section provides an example of how the LISP-MN is integrated 786 into the base LISP Design [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 788 11.1. Provisioning 790 The LISP-MN needs to be configured with the following information: 792 An EID, assigned to its loopback address 794 A key for map-registration 795 An IP address of a Map-Resolver (this could be learned 796 dynamically) 798 An IP address of its Map-Server and Proxy ETR 800 11.2. Registration 802 After a LISP roams to a new network, it must immediately register its 803 new mapping this new RLOC (and associated priority/weight data) with 804 its Map-Server. 806 The LISP-MN may chose to set the 'proxy' bit in the map-register to 807 indicate that it desires its Map-Server to answer map-requests on its 808 behalf. 810 12. LISP Implementation in a Mobile Node 812 This section will describe a possible approach for developing a 813 lightweight LISP-MN implementation. A LISP-MN will implement a LISP 814 sub-layer inside of the IP layer of the protocol stack. The sub- 815 layer resides between the IP layer and the link-layer. 817 For outgoing unicast packets, once the header that contains EIDs is 818 built and right before an outgoing interface is chosen, a LISP header 819 is prepended to the outgoing packet. The source address is set to 820 the local RLOC address (obtained by DHCP perhaps) and the destination 821 address is set to the RLOC associated with the destination EID from 822 the IP layer. To obtain the RLOC for the EID, the LISP-MN maintains 823 a map-cache for destination sites or destination LISP-MNs to which it 824 is currently talking. The map-cache lookup is performed by doing a 825 longest match lookup on the destination address the IP layer put in 826 the first IP header. Once the new header is prepended, a route table 827 lookup is performed to find the interface in which to send the packet 828 or the default router interface is used to send the packet. 830 When the map-cache does not exist for a destination, the mobile node 831 may queue or drop the packet while it sends a Map-Request to it's 832 configured Map-Resolver. Once a Map-Reply is returned, the map-cache 833 entry stores the EID-to-RLOC state. If the RLOC state is empty in 834 the Map-Reply, the Map-Reply is known as a Negative Map-Reply in 835 which case the map-cache entry is created with a single RLOC, the 836 RLOC of the configured Map-Server for the LISP-MN. The Map-Server 837 that serves the LISP-MN also acts as a Proxy ETR (PETR) so packets 838 can get delivered to hosts in non-LISP sites to which the LISP-MN is 839 sending. 841 For incoming unicast packets, the LISP sub-layer simply decapsulates 842 the packets and delivers to the IP layer. The loc-reach-bits can be 843 processed by the LISP sub-layer. Specifically, the source EID from 844 the packet is looked up in the map-cache and if the loc-reach-bits 845 settings have changed, store the loc-reach-bits from the packet and 846 note which RLOCs for the map-cache entry should not be used. 848 In terms of the LISP-MN detecting which RLOCs from each stored map- 849 cache entry is reachable, it can use any of the Locator Reachability 850 Algorithms from [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 852 A background task that runs off a timer should be run so the LISP-MN 853 can send periodic Map-Register messages to the Map-Server. The Map- 854 Register message should also be triggered when the LISP-MN detects a 855 change in IP address for a given interface. The LISP-MN should send 856 Map-Registers to the same Map-Register out each of it's operational 857 links. This will provide for robustness on radio links with which 858 the mobile node is associated. 860 A LISP-MN receives a Map-Request when it has Map-Registered to a Map- 861 Server with the Proxy-bit set to 0. This means that the LISP-MN 862 wishes to send authoritative Map-Replies for Map-Requests that are 863 targeted at the LISP-MN. If the Proxy-bit is set when the LISP-MN 864 registers, then the Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map- 865 Replies on behalf of the LISP-MN. In this case, the Map-Server never 866 encapsulates Map-Requests to the LISP-MN. The LISP-MN can save 867 resources by not receiving Map-Requests (note that the LISP-MN will 868 receive SMRs which have the same format as Map-Requests). 870 To summarize, a LISP sub-layer should implement: 872 o Encapsulating and decapsulating data packets. 874 o Sending and receiving of Map-Request control messages. 876 o Receiving and optionally sending Map-Replies. 878 o Sending Map-Register messages periodically. 880 The key point about the LISP sub-layer is that no other components in 881 the protocol stack need changing; just the insertion of this sub- 882 layer between the IP layer and the interface layer-2 encapsulation/ 883 decapsulation layer. 885 13. Security Considerations 887 Security for the LISP-MN design builds upon the security fundamentals 888 found in LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for data-plane security and 889 the LISP Map Server [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] registration security. 890 Security issues unique to the LISP-MN design are considered below. 892 13.1. Proxy ETR Hijacking 894 The Proxy ETR (or PETR) that a LISP-MN uses as its destination for 895 non-LISP traffic must use the security association used by the 896 registration process outlined in Section 5.2 and explained in detail 897 in the LISP-MS specification [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. These 898 measures prevent third party injection of LISP encapsulated traffic 899 into a Proxy ETR. Importantly, a PETR must not decapsulate packets 900 from non-registered RLOCs. 902 13.2. LISP Mobile Node using an EID as its RLOC 904 For LISP packets to be sent to a LISP-MN which has an EID assigned to 905 it as an RLOC as described in Section 9.1), the LISP site must allow 906 for incoming and outgoing LISP data packets. Firewalls and stateless 907 packet filtering mechanisms must be configured to allow UDP port 4341 908 and UDP port 4342 packets. 910 14. IANA Considerations 912 This document is requesting bit allocations in the Map-Request and 913 Map-Register messages. The registry is introduced in 914 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and named "LISP Bit Flags". This document 915 is adding bits to the sub-registry "Map-Request Header Bits' and 916 "Map-Register Header Bits". A LISP mobile-node will set the m-bit to 917 1 when it sends Map-Request and Map-Register messages. 919 Sub-Registry: Map-Request Header Bits: 921 0 1 2 3 922 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 1 923 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 924 |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|m|R| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count | 925 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 927 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-----------------+ 928 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 929 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-----------------+ 930 | m | map-request-m | 10 | Mobile Node Bit | 931 +-----------+---------------+--------------+-----------------+ 933 LISP Map-Request Header Bits 935 Sub-Registry: Map-Register Header Bits: 937 0 1 2 3 938 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 1 939 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 940 |Type=3 |P|S|R| Reserved |E|T|a|m|M| Record Count | 941 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 943 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 944 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 945 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 946 | m | map-register-m | 22 | LISP Mobile Node Bit | 947 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 949 LISP Map-Register Header Bits 951 15. References 953 15.1. Normative References 955 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 956 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 957 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 958 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-33 (work in progress), 959 July 2020. 961 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 962 Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- 963 Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- 964 Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-28 (work in progress), 965 July 2020. 967 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., 968 and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 969 BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, 970 . 972 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", 973 RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997, 974 . 976 [RFC3344] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", 977 RFC 3344, DOI 10.17487/RFC3344, August 2002, 978 . 980 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 981 in IPv6", RFC 3775, DOI 10.17487/RFC3775, June 2004, 982 . 984 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 985 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 986 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 987 . 989 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 990 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 991 Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 992 2013, . 994 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 995 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 996 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 997 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 998 . 1000 [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 1001 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, 1002 DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, 1003 . 1005 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 1006 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 1007 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, 1008 January 2013, . 1010 15.2. Informative References 1012 [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] 1013 Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Maino, F., 1014 Portoles-Comeras, M., Skriver, J., White, C., and A. 1015 Bresco, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-lisp-nat- 1016 traversal-17 (work in progress), August 2020. 1018 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-simple-nat] 1019 Farinacci, D., "A Simple LISP NAT-Traversal 1020 Implementation", draft-farinacci-lisp-simple-nat-00 (work 1021 in progress), May 2020. 1023 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 1025 Albert Cabellos, Noel Chiappa, Pierre Francois, Michael Menth, Andrew 1026 Partan, Chris White and John Zwiebel provided insightful comments on 1027 the mobile node concept and on this document. A special thanks goes 1028 to Mary Nickum for her attention to detail and effort in editing 1029 early versions of this document. 1031 Appendix B. Document Change Log 1033 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-08 1035 o Posted August 2020. 1037 o Update references and document timer. 1039 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-07 1041 o Posted March 2020. 1043 o Update references and document timer. 1045 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-06 1047 o Posted September 2019. 1049 o Update references and document timer. 1051 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-05 1053 o Posted March IETF week 2019. 1055 o Update references and document timer. 1057 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 1059 o Posted October 2018. 1061 o Make IANA Considerations section formatted like 1062 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 1064 o Change all references for RFC6830 to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 1065 and for RFC6833 to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 1067 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-03 1069 o Posted October 2018. 1071 o Request m-bit allocation in Map-Register message in IANA 1072 Considerations section. 1074 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-02 1076 o Posted April 2018. 1078 o Update document timer and references. 1080 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-01 1082 o Posted October 2017. 1084 o Update document timer and references. 1086 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 1088 o Posted April 2017. 1090 o Changed draft-meyer-lisp-mn-16 to working group document. 1092 Authors' Addresses 1094 Dino Farinacci 1095 lispers.net 1096 San Jose, CA 95134 1097 USA 1099 Email: farinacci@gmail.com 1101 Darrel Lewis 1102 cisco Systems 1103 Tasman Drive 1104 San Jose, CA 95134 1105 USA 1107 Email: darlewis@cisco.com 1109 David Meyer 1110 1-4-5.net 1111 USA 1113 Email: dmm@1-4-5.net 1115 Chris White 1116 Logical Elegance, LLC. 1117 San Jose, CA 95134 1118 USA 1120 Email: chris@logicalelegance.com