idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27.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 is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC6833, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6833 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 9, 2020) is 1562 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Key ID' is mentioned on line 1088, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications' is defined on line 2165, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2104' is defined on line 2178, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6234' is defined on line 2192, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-19 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147) == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-mn-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-09 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6830 (Obsoleted by RFC 9300, RFC 9301) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 16 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). 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 Obsoletes: 6830, 6833 (if approved) F. Maino 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 6 Expires: July 12, 2020 V. Fuller 7 vaf.net Internet Consulting 8 A. Cabellos (Ed.) 9 UPC/BarcelonaTech 10 January 9, 2020 12 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane 13 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 15 Abstract 17 This document describes the Control-Plane and Mapping Service for the 18 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), implemented by two types of 19 LISP-speaking devices -- the LISP Map-Resolver and LISP Map-Server -- 20 that provides a simplified "front end" for one or more Endpoint ID to 21 Routing Locator mapping databases. 23 By using this Control-Plane service interface and communicating with 24 Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers, LISP Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) and 25 Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) are not dependent on the details of 26 mapping database systems, which facilitates modularity with different 27 database designs. Since these devices implement the "edge" of the 28 LISP Control-Plane infrastructure, connecting EID addressable nodes 29 of a LISP site, their implementation and operational complexity 30 reduces the overall cost and effort of deploying LISP. 32 This document obsoletes RFC 6830 and RFC 6833. 34 Status of This Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2020. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 5. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats . . . . . . . 8 73 5.1. LISP Control Packet Type Allocations . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 5.2. Map-Request Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 5.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . 14 76 5.4. Map-Reply Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 77 5.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 78 5.6. Map-Register Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 79 5.7. Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format . . . . . . . . 28 80 5.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . 30 81 6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 32 82 6.1. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 83 7. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 84 7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 85 8. Interactions with Other LISP Components . . . . . . . . . . . 35 86 8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . 35 87 8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration . . . . . . 36 88 8.3. Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 89 8.4. Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 90 8.4.1. Anycast Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 91 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 92 10. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 93 11. Changes since RFC 6833 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 94 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 95 12.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 96 12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 97 12.3. LISP Map-Reply EID-Record Action Codes . . . . . . . . . 43 98 12.4. LISP Address Type Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 99 12.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 100 12.6. LISP Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 101 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 102 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 103 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 104 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 105 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 106 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-26 . . . . . . . . 54 107 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-25 . . . . . . . . 54 108 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 . . . . . . . . 55 109 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23 . . . . . . . . 55 110 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 . . . . . . . . 55 111 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-21 . . . . . . . . 55 112 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20 . . . . . . . . 55 113 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 . . . . . . . . 56 114 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 . . . . . . . . 56 115 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 . . . . . . . . 56 116 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 . . . . . . . . 56 117 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 . . . . . . . . 56 118 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 . . . . . . . . 56 119 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 . . . . . . . . 57 120 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 . . . . . . . . 57 121 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 . . . . . . . . 57 122 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 . . . . . . . . 57 123 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 . . . . . . . . 57 124 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 . . . . . . . . 57 125 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 . . . . . . . . 58 126 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 . . . . . . . . 58 127 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 . . . . . . . . 59 128 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 . . . . . . . . 59 129 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 . . . . . . . . 59 130 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 . . . . . . . . 59 131 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 . . . . . . . . 59 132 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . . . 60 133 B.28. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 . . . . . . 60 134 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 136 1. Introduction 138 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] (see 139 also [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]) specifies an architecture and 140 mechanism for dynamic tunneling by logically separating the addresses 141 currently used by IP in two separate name spaces: Endpoint IDs 142 (EIDs), used within sites; and Routing Locators (RLOCs), used on the 143 transit networks that make up the Internet infrastructure. To 144 achieve this separation, LISP defines protocol mechanisms for mapping 145 from EIDs to RLOCs. In addition, LISP assumes the existence of a 146 database to store and propagate those mappings across mapping system 147 nodes. Several such databases have been proposed; among them are the 148 Content distribution Overlay Network Service for LISP-NERD (a Not-so- 149 novel EID-to-RLOC Database) [RFC6837], LISP Alternative Logical 150 Topology (LISP-ALT) [RFC6836], and LISP Delegated Database Tree 151 (LISP-DDT) [RFC8111]. 153 The LISP Mapping Service defines two types of LISP-speaking devices: 154 the Map-Resolver, which accepts Map-Requests from an Ingress Tunnel 155 Router (ITR) and "resolves" the EID-to-RLOC mapping using a mapping 156 database; and the Map-Server, which learns authoritative EID-to-RLOC 157 mappings from an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) and publishes them in a 158 database. 160 This LISP Control-Plane Mapping Service can be used by many different 161 encapsulation-based or translation-based Data-Planes which include 162 but are not limited to the ones defined in LISP RFC 6830bis 163 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], LISP-GPE [I-D.ietf-lisp-gpe], VXLAN 164 [RFC7348], VXLAN-GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], GRE [RFC2890], GTP 165 [GTP-3GPP], ILA [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila], and Segment Routing (SRv6) 166 [RFC8402]. 168 Conceptually, LISP Map-Servers share some of the same basic 169 configuration and maintenance properties as Domain Name System (DNS) 170 [RFC1035] servers; likewise, Map-Resolvers are conceptually similar 171 to DNS caching resolvers. With this in mind, this specification 172 borrows familiar terminology (resolver and server) from the DNS 173 specifications. 175 Note this document doesn't assume any particular database mapping 176 infrastructure to illustrate certain aspects of Map-Server and Map- 177 Resolver operation. The Mapping Service interface can (and likely 178 will) be used by ITRs and ETRs to access other mapping database 179 systems as the LISP infrastructure evolves. 181 LISP is not intended to address problems of connectivity and scaling 182 on behalf of arbitrary communicating parties. Relevant situations 183 are described in the scoping section of the introduction to 184 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 186 This document obsoletes RFC 6830 and 6833. 188 1.1. Scope of Applicability 190 LISP was originally developed to address the Internet-wide route 191 scaling problem [RFC4984]. While there are a number of approaches of 192 interest for that problem, as LISP as been developed and refined, a 193 large number of other LISP uses have been found and are being used. 194 As such, the design and development of LISP has changed so as to 195 focus on these use cases. The common property of these uses is a 196 large set of cooperating entities seeking to communicate over the 197 public Internet or other large underlay IP infrastructures, while 198 keeping the addressing and topology of the cooperating entities 199 separate from the underlay and Internet topology, routing, and 200 addressing. 202 2. Requirements Notation 204 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 205 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 206 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 207 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 208 capitals, as shown here. 210 3. Definition of Terms 212 Map-Server: A network infrastructure component that learns of EID- 213 Prefix mapping entries from an ETR, via the registration mechanism 214 described below, or some other authoritative source if one exists. 215 A Map-Server publishes these EID-Prefixes in a mapping database. 217 Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request is a Control-Plane message to query 218 the mapping system to resolve an EID. A LISP Map-Request can also 219 be sent to an RLOC to test for reachability and to exchange 220 security keys between an encapsulator and a decapsulator. This 221 type of Map-Request is also known as an RLOC-Probe Request. 223 Map-Reply: A LISP Map-Reply is a Control-Plane message returned in 224 response to a Map-Request sent to the mapping system when 225 resolving an EID. A LISP Map-Reply can also be returned by a 226 decapsulator in response to a Map-Request sent by an encapsulator 227 to test for reachability. This type of Map-Reply is known as a 228 RLOC-Probe Reply. 230 Encapsulated Map-Request: A LISP Map-Request carried within an 231 Encapsulated Control Message (ECM), which has an additional LISP 232 header prepended. Sent to UDP destination port 4342. The "outer" 233 addresses are routable IP addresses, also known as RLOCs. Used by 234 an ITR when sending to a Map-Resolver and by a Map-Server when 235 forwarding a Map-Request to an ETR. 237 Map-Resolver: A network infrastructure component that accepts LISP 238 Encapsulated (ECM) Map-Requests, typically from an ITR, and 239 determines whether or not the destination IP address is part of 240 the EID namespace; if it is not, a Negative Map-Reply is returned. 241 Otherwise, the Map-Resolver finds the appropriate EID-to-RLOC 242 mapping by consulting a mapping database system. 244 Negative Map-Reply: A LISP Map-Reply that contains an empty 245 Locator-Set. Returned in response to a Map-Request if the 246 destination EID is not registered in the mapping system, is policy 247 denied or fails authentication. 249 Map-Register message: A LISP message sent by an ETR to a Map-Server 250 to register its associated EID-Prefixes. In addition to the set 251 of EID-Prefixes to register, the message includes one or more 252 RLOCs to reach ETR(s). The Map-Server uses these RLOCs when 253 forwarding Map-Requests (re-formatted as Encapsulated Map- 254 Requests). An ETR MAY request that the Map-Server answer Map- 255 Requests on its behalf by setting the "proxy Map-Reply" flag 256 (P-bit) in the message. 258 Map-Notify message: A LISP message sent by a Map-Server to an ETR 259 to confirm that a Map-Register has been received and processed. 260 An ETR requests that a Map-Notify be returned by setting the 261 "want-map-notify" flag (M-bit) in the Map-Register message. 262 Unlike a Map-Reply, a Map-Notify uses UDP port 4342 for both 263 source and destination. Map-Notify messages are also sent to ITRs 264 by Map-Servers when there are RLOC-set changes. 266 For definitions of other terms, notably Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR), 267 Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), and Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR), 268 refer to the LISP Data-Plane specification 269 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 271 4. Basic Overview 273 A Map-Server is a device that publishes EID-Prefixes in a LISP 274 mapping database on behalf of a set of ETRs. When it receives a Map 275 Request (typically from an ITR), it consults the mapping database to 276 find an ETR that can answer with the set of RLOCs for an EID-Prefix. 277 To publish its EID-Prefixes, an ETR periodically sends Map-Register 278 messages to the Map-Server. A Map-Register message contains a list 279 of EID-Prefixes plus a set of RLOCs that can be used to reach the 280 ETRs. 282 When LISP-ALT [RFC6836] is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server 283 connects to the ALT network and acts as a "last-hop" ALT-Router. 284 Intermediate ALT-Routers forward Map-Requests to the Map-Server that 285 advertises a particular EID-Prefix, and the Map-Server forwards them 286 to the owning ETR, which responds with Map-Reply messages. 288 When LISP-DDT [RFC8111] is used as the mapping database, a Map-Server 289 sends the final Map-Referral messages from the Delegated Database 290 Tree. 292 A Map-Resolver receives Encapsulated Map-Requests from its client 293 ITRs and uses a mapping database system to find the appropriate ETR 294 to answer those requests. On a LISP-ALT network, a Map-Resolver acts 295 as a "first-hop" ALT-Router. It has Generic Routing Encapsulation 296 (GRE) tunnels configured to other ALT-Routers and uses BGP to learn 297 paths to ETRs for different prefixes in the LISP-ALT database. The 298 Map-Resolver uses this path information to forward Map-Requests over 299 the ALT to the correct ETRs. On a LISP-DDT network [RFC8111], a Map- 300 Resolver maintains a referral-cache and acts as a "first-hop" DDT- 301 node. The Map-Resolver uses the referral information to forward Map- 302 Requests. 304 Note that while it is conceivable that a Map-Resolver could cache 305 responses to improve performance, issues surrounding cache management 306 would need to be resolved so that doing so will be reliable and 307 practical. In this specification, Map-Resolvers will operate only in 308 a non-caching mode, decapsulating and forwarding Encapsulated Map 309 Requests received from ITRs. Any specification of caching 310 functionality is out of scope for this document. 312 Note that a single device can implement the functions of both a Map- 313 Server and a Map-Resolver, and in many cases the functions will be 314 co-located in that way. Also, there can be ALT-only nodes and DDT- 315 only nodes, when LISP-ALT and LISP-DDT are used, respectively, to 316 connecting Map-Resolvers and Map-Servers together to make up the 317 Mapping System. 319 5. LISP IPv4 and IPv6 Control-Plane Packet Formats 321 The following UDP packet formats are used by the LISP control plane. 323 0 1 2 3 324 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 1 325 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 326 |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | 327 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 328 | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | 329 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 330 | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum | 331 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 332 | Source Routing Locator | 333 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 334 | Destination Routing Locator | 335 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 336 / | Source Port | Dest Port | 337 UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 338 \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | 339 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 340 | | 341 | LISP Message | 342 | | 343 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 345 IPv4 UDP LISP Control Message 347 0 1 2 3 348 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 1 349 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 350 |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | 351 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 352 | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit | 353 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 354 | | 355 + + 356 | | 357 + Source Routing Locator + 358 | | 359 + + 360 | | 361 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 362 | | 363 + + 364 | | 365 + Destination Routing Locator + 366 | | 367 + + 368 | | 369 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 370 / | Source Port | Dest Port | 371 UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 372 \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | 373 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 374 | | 375 | LISP Message | 376 | | 377 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 379 IPv6 UDP LISP Control Message 381 When a UDP Map-Request, Map-Register, or Map-Notify (when used as a 382 notification message) are sent, the UDP source port is chosen by the 383 sender and the destination UDP port number is set to 4342. When a 384 UDP Map-Reply, Map-Notify (when used as an acknowledgement to a Map- 385 Register), or Map-Notify-Ack are sent, the source UDP port number is 386 set to 4342 and the destination UDP port number is copied from the 387 source port of either the Map-Request or the invoking data packet. 388 Implementations MUST be prepared to accept packets when either the 389 source port or destination UDP port is set to 4342 due to NATs 390 changing port number values. 392 The 'UDP Length' field will reflect the length of the UDP header and 393 the LISP Message payload. LISP is expected to be deployed by 394 cooperating entities communicating over underlays. Deployers are 395 expected to set the MTU according to the specific deployment 396 guidelines to prevent fragmentation of either the inner packet or the 397 outer encapsulated packet. For deployments not aware of the underlay 398 restrictions on path MTU, the message size MUST be limited to 576 399 bytes for IPv4 or 1280 bytes for IPv6 as outlined in [RFC8085]. 401 The UDP checksum is computed and set to non-zero for all messages 402 sent to or from port 4342. It MUST be checked on receipt, and if the 403 checksum fails, the control message MUST be dropped [RFC1071]. 405 The format of control messages includes the UDP header so the 406 checksum and length fields can be used to protect and delimit message 407 boundaries. 409 5.1. LISP Control Packet Type Allocations 411 This section defines the LISP control message formats and summarizes 412 for IANA the LISP Type codes assigned by this document. For 413 completeness, the summary below includes the LISP Shared Extension 414 Message assigned by [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis]. Message type 415 definitions are: 417 Reserved: 0 b'0000' 418 LISP Map-Request: 1 b'0001' 419 LISP Map-Reply: 2 b'0010' 420 LISP Map-Register: 3 b'0011' 421 LISP Map-Notify: 4 b'0100' 422 LISP Map-Notify-Ack: 5 b'0101' 423 LISP Map-Referral: 6 b'0110' 424 Unassigned 7 b'0111' 425 LISP Encapsulated Control Message: 8 b'1000' 426 Unassigned 9-14 b'1001'- b'1110' 427 LISP Shared Extension Message: 15 b'1111' 429 Protocol designers experimenting with new message formats are 430 recommended to use the LISP Shared Extension Message Type described 431 in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis]. 433 All LISP Control-Plane messages use Address Family Identifiers (AFI) 434 [AFI] or LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] formats to 435 encode either fixed or variable length addresses. This includes 436 explicit fields in each control message or part of EID-records or 437 RLOC-records in commonly formatted messages. 439 The LISP control-plane describes how other data-planes can encode 440 messages to support the Soliciting of Map-Requests as well as RLOC- 441 probing procedures. 443 5.2. Map-Request Message Format 445 0 1 2 3 446 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 1 447 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 448 |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|R|R| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count | 449 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 450 | Nonce . . . | 451 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 452 | . . . Nonce | 453 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 454 | Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... | 455 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 456 | ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... | 457 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 458 | ... | 459 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 460 | ITR-RLOC-AFI n | ITR-RLOC Address n ... | 461 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 462 / | Reserved | EID mask-len | EID-Prefix-AFI | 463 Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 464 \ | EID-Prefix ... | 465 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 466 | Map-Reply Record ... | 467 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 469 Packet field descriptions: 471 Type: 1 (Map-Request) 473 A: This is an authoritative bit, which is set to 0 for UDP-based Map- 474 Requests sent by an ITR. It is set to 1 when an ITR wants the 475 destination site to return the Map-Reply rather than the mapping 476 database system returning a Map-Reply. 478 M: This is the map-data-present bit. When set, it indicates that a 479 Map-Reply Record segment is included in the Map-Request. 481 P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that a Map-Request MUST be 482 treated as a Locator reachability probe. The receiver MUST 483 respond with a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set, indicating that 484 the Map-Reply is a Locator reachability probe reply, with the 485 nonce copied from the Map-Request. See RLOC-Probing Section 7.1 486 for more details. This RLOC-probe Map-Request MUST NOT be sent to 487 the mapping system. If a Map-Resolver or Map-Server receives a 488 Map-Request with the probe-bit set, it MUST drop the message. 490 S: This is the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) bit. See Solicit-Map- 491 Request (SMRs) Section 6.1 for details. 493 p: This is the PITR bit. This bit is set to 1 when a PITR sends a 494 Map-Request. 496 s: This is the SMR-invoked bit. This bit is set to 1 when an xTR is 497 sending a Map-Request in response to a received SMR-based Map- 498 Request. 500 R: This reserved and unassigned bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and 501 MUST be ignored on receipt. 503 Rsvd: This field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on 504 receipt. 506 L: This is the local-xtr bit. It is used by an xTR in a LISP site to 507 tell other xTRs in the same site that it is part of the RLOC-set 508 for the LISP site. The L-bit is set to 1 when the RLOC is the 509 sender's IP address. 511 D: This is the dont-map-reply bit. It is used in the SMR procedure 512 described in Section 6.1. When an xTR sends an SMR Map-Request 513 message, it doesn't need a Map-Reply returned. When this bit is 514 set, the receiver of the Map-Request does not return a Map-Reply. 516 IRC: This 5-bit field is the ITR-RLOC Count, which encodes the 517 additional number of ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC Address') fields 518 present in this message. At least one (ITR-RLOC-AFI, ITR-RLOC- 519 Address) pair MUST be encoded. Multiple 'ITR-RLOC Address' fields 520 are used, so a Map-Replier can select which destination address to 521 use for a Map-Reply. The IRC value ranges from 0 to 31. For a 522 value of 0, there is 1 ITR-RLOC address encoded; for a value of 1, 523 there are 2 ITR-RLOC addresses encoded, and so on up to 31, which 524 encodes a total of 32 ITR-RLOC addresses. 526 Record Count: This is the number of records in this Map-Request 527 message. A record is comprised of the portion of the packet that 528 is labeled 'Rec' above and occurs the number of times equal to 529 Record Count. For this version of the protocol, a receiver MUST 530 accept and process Map-Requests that contain one or more records, 531 but a sender MUST only send Map-Requests containing one record. 533 Nonce: This is an 8-octet random value created by the sender of the 534 Map-Request. This nonce will be returned in the Map-Reply. The 535 nonce is used as an index to identify the corresponding Map- 536 Request when a Map-Reply message is received. The nonce MUST be 537 generated by a properly seeded pseudo-random source, see as an 538 example [RFC4086]. 540 Source-EID-AFI: This is the address family of the 'Source EID 541 Address' field. 543 Source EID Address: This is the EID of the source host that 544 originated the packet that caused the Map-Request. When Map- 545 Requests are used for refreshing a Map-Cache entry or for RLOC- 546 Probing, an AFI value 0 is used and this field is of zero length. 548 ITR-RLOC-AFI: This is the address family of the 'ITR-RLOC Address' 549 field that follows this field. 551 ITR-RLOC Address: This is used to give the ETR the option of 552 selecting the destination address from any address family for the 553 Map-Reply message. This address MUST be a routable RLOC address 554 of the sender of the Map-Request message. 556 EID mask-len: This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix. 558 EID-Prefix-AFI: This is the address family of the EID-Prefix 559 according to [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 561 EID-Prefix: This prefix address length is 4 octets for an IPv4 562 address family and 16 octets for an IPv6 address family when the 563 EID-Prefix-AFI is 1 or 2, respectively. For other AFIs [AFI], the 564 address length varies and for the LCAF AFI the format is defined 565 in [RFC8060]. When a Map-Request is sent by an ITR because a data 566 packet is received for a destination where there is no mapping 567 entry, the EID-Prefix is set to the destination IP address of the 568 data packet, and the 'EID mask-len' is set to 32 or 128 for IPv4 569 or IPv6, respectively. When an xTR wants to query a site about 570 the status of a mapping it already has cached, the EID-Prefix used 571 in the Map-Request has the same mask-length as the EID-Prefix 572 returned from the site when it sent a Map-Reply message. 574 Map-Reply Record: When the M-bit is set, this field is the size of a 575 single "Record" in the Map-Reply format. This Map-Reply record 576 contains the EID-to-RLOC mapping entry associated with the Source 577 EID. This allows the ETR that will receive this Map-Request to 578 cache the data if it chooses to do so. 580 5.3. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Request Message 582 A Map-Request is sent from an ITR when it needs a mapping for an EID, 583 wants to test an RLOC for reachability, or wants to refresh a mapping 584 before TTL expiration. For the initial case, the destination IP 585 address used for the Map-Request is the data packet's destination 586 address (i.e., the destination EID) that had a mapping cache lookup 587 failure. For the latter two cases, the destination IP address used 588 for the Map-Request is one of the RLOC addresses from the Locator-Set 589 of the Map-Cache entry. The source address is either an IPv4 or IPv6 590 RLOC address, depending on whether the Map-Request is using an IPv4 591 or IPv6 header, respectively. In all cases, the UDP source port 592 number for the Map-Request message is a 16-bit value selected by the 593 ITR/PITR, and the UDP destination port number is set to the well- 594 known destination port number 4342. A successful Map-Reply, which is 595 one that has a nonce that matches an outstanding Map-Request nonce, 596 will update the cached set of RLOCs associated with the EID-Prefix 597 range. 599 One or more Map-Request ('ITR-RLOC-AFI', 'ITR-RLOC-Address') fields 600 MUST be filled in by the ITR. The number of fields (minus 1) encoded 601 MUST be placed in the 'IRC' field. The ITR MAY include all locally 602 configured Locators in this list or just provide one locator address 603 from each address family it supports. If the ITR erroneously 604 provides no ITR-RLOC addresses, the Map-Replier MUST drop the Map- 605 Request. 607 Map-Requests can also be LISP encapsulated using UDP destination 608 port 4342 with a LISP Type value set to "Encapsulated Control 609 Message", when sent from an ITR to a Map-Resolver. Likewise, Map- 610 Requests are LISP encapsulated the same way from a Map-Server to an 611 ETR. Details on Encapsulated Map-Requests and Map-Resolvers can be 612 found in Section 5.8. 614 Map-Requests MUST be rate-limited to 1 per second per EID-prefix. 615 After 10 retransmits without receiving the corresponding Map-Reply 616 must wait 30 seconds. 618 An ITR that is configured with mapping database information (i.e., it 619 is also an ETR) MAY optionally include those mappings in a Map- 620 Request. When an ETR configured to accept and verify such 621 "piggybacked" mapping data receives such a Map-Request and it does 622 not have this mapping in the Map-Cache, it MAY originate a "verifying 623 Map-Request", addressed to the map-requesting ITR and the ETR MAY add 624 a Map-Cache entry. If the ETR (when it is an xTR co-located as an 625 ITR) has a Map-Cache entry that matches the "piggybacked" EID and the 626 RLOC is in the Locator-Set for the cached entry, then it MAY send the 627 "verifying Map-Request" directly to the originating Map-Request 628 source. If the RLOC is not in the Locator-Set, then the ETR MUST 629 send the "verifying Map-Request" to the "piggybacked" EID. Doing 630 this forces the "verifying Map-Request" to go through the mapping 631 database system to reach the authoritative source of information 632 about that EID, guarding against RLOC-spoofing in the "piggybacked" 633 mapping data. 635 5.4. Map-Reply Message Format 637 0 1 2 3 638 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 1 639 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 640 |Type=2 |P|E|S| Reserved | Record Count | 641 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 642 | Nonce . . . | 643 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 644 | . . . Nonce | 645 +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 646 | | Record TTL | 647 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 648 R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | 649 e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 650 c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI | 651 o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 652 r | EID-Prefix | 653 d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 654 | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | 655 | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 656 | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | 657 | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 658 | \| Locator | 659 +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 661 Packet field descriptions: 663 Type: 2 (Map-Reply) 665 P: This is the probe-bit, which indicates that the Map-Reply is in 666 response to a Locator reachability probe Map-Request. The 'Nonce' 667 field MUST contain a copy of the nonce value from the original 668 Map-Request. See RLOC-probing Section 7.1 for more details. When 669 the probe-bit is set to 1 in a Map-Reply message, the A-bit in 670 each EID-record included in the message MUST be set to 1, 671 otherwise MUST be silently discarded. 673 E: This bit indicates that the ETR that sends this Map-Reply message 674 is advertising that the site is enabled for the Echo-Nonce Locator 675 reachability algorithm. See Echo-Nonce [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 676 for more details. 678 S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1, the following 679 authentication information will be appended to the end of the Map- 680 Reply. The details can be found in [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 682 0 1 2 3 683 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 1 684 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 685 | AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . | 686 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 688 Reserved: This unassigned field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and 689 MUST be ignored on receipt. 691 Record Count: This is the number of records in this reply message. 692 A record is comprised of that portion of the packet labeled 693 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to Record 694 Count. 696 Nonce: This 64-bit value from the Map-Request is echoed in this 697 'Nonce' field of the Map-Reply. 699 Record TTL: This is the time in minutes the recipient of the Map- 700 Reply can store the mapping. If the TTL is 0, the entry MUST be 701 removed from the cache immediately. If the value is 0xffffffff, 702 the recipient can decide locally how long to store the mapping. 704 Locator Count: This is the number of Locator entries in the given 705 Record. A Locator entry comprises what is labeled above as 'Loc'. 706 The Locator count can be 0, indicating that there are no Locators 707 for the EID-Prefix. 709 EID mask-len: This is the mask length for the EID-Prefix. 711 ACT: This 3-bit field describes Negative Map-Reply actions. In any 712 other message type, these bits are set to 0 and ignored on 713 receipt. These bits are used only when the 'Locator Count' field 714 is set to 0. The action bits are encoded only in Map-Reply 715 messages. They are used to tell an ITR or PITR why a empty 716 locator-set was returned from the mapping system and how it stores 717 the map-cache entry. See Section 12.3 for additional information. 719 (0) No-Action: The Map-Cache is kept alive, and no packet 720 encapsulation occurs. 722 (1) Natively-Forward: The packet is not encapsulated or dropped 723 but natively forwarded. 725 (2) Send-Map-Request: The Map-Cache entry is created and flagged 726 that any packet matching this entry invokes sending a Map- 727 Request. 729 (3) Drop/No-Reason: A packet that matches this Map-Cache entry is 730 dropped. An ICMP Destination Unreachable message SHOULD be 731 sent. 733 (4) Drop/Policy-Denied: A packet that matches this Map-Cache 734 entry is dropped. The reason for the Drop action is that a 735 Map-Request for the target-EID is being policy denied by 736 either an xTR or the mapping system. 738 (5) Drop/Authentication-Failure: A packet that matches this Map- 739 Cache entry is dropped. The reason for the Drop action is 740 that a Map-Request for the target-EID fails an authentication 741 verification-check by either an xTR or the mapping system. 743 A: The Authoritative bit MAY only be set to 1 by an ETR. A Map- 744 Server generating Map-Reply messages as a proxy MUST NOT set the 745 A-bit to 1 by an ETR, and not a Map-Server generating Map-Reply 746 messages as a proxy. This bit indicates to requesting ITRs that 747 the Map-Reply was not originated by a LISP node managed at the 748 site that owns the EID-Prefix. 750 Map-Version Number: When this 12-bit value is non-zero, the Map- 751 Reply sender is informing the ITR what the version number is for 752 the EID record contained in the Map-Reply. The ETR can allocate 753 this number internally but MUST coordinate this value with other 754 ETRs for the site. When this value is 0, there is no versioning 755 information conveyed. The Map-Version Number can be included in 756 Map-Request and Map-Register messages. See Map-Versioning 757 [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] for more details. 759 EID-Prefix-AFI: Address family of the EID-Prefix according to [AFI] 760 and [RFC8060]. 762 EID-Prefix: This prefix is 4 octets for an IPv4 address family and 763 16 octets for an IPv6 address family. 765 Priority: Each RLOC is assigned a unicast Priority. Lower values 766 are more preferable. When multiple RLOCs have the same Priority, 767 they may be used in a load-split fashion. A value of 255 means 768 the RLOC MUST NOT be used for unicast forwarding. 770 Weight: When priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the Weight 771 indicates how to balance unicast traffic between them. Weight is 772 encoded as a relative weight of total unicast packets that match 773 the mapping entry. For example, if there are 4 Locators in a 774 Locator-Set, where the Weights assigned are 30, 20, 20, and 10, 775 the first Locator will get 37.5% of the traffic, the 2nd and 3rd 776 Locators will get 25% of the traffic, and the 4th Locator will get 777 12.5% of the traffic. If all Weights for a Locator-Set are equal, 778 the receiver of the Map-Reply will decide how to load-split the 779 traffic. See RLOC-hashing [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for a 780 suggested hash algorithm to distribute the load across Locators 781 with the same Priority and equal Weight values. 783 M Priority: Each RLOC is assigned a multicast Priority used by an 784 ETR in a receiver multicast site to select an ITR in a source 785 multicast site for building multicast distribution trees. A value 786 of 255 means the RLOC MUST NOT be used for joining a multicast 787 distribution tree. For more details, see [RFC6831]. 789 M Weight: When priorities are the same for multiple RLOCs, the 790 Weight indicates how to balance building multicast distribution 791 trees across multiple ITRs. The Weight is encoded as a relative 792 weight (similar to the unicast Weights) of the total number of 793 trees built to the source site identified by the EID-Prefix. If 794 all Weights for a Locator-Set are equal, the receiver of the Map- 795 Reply will decide how to distribute multicast state across ITRs. 796 For more details, see [RFC6831]. 798 Unused Flags: These are set to 0 when sending and ignored on 799 receipt. 801 L: When this bit is set, the Locator is flagged as a local Locator to 802 the ETR that is sending the Map-Reply. When a Map-Server is doing 803 proxy Map-Replying for a LISP site, the L-bit is set to 0 for all 804 Locators in this Locator-Set. 806 p: When this bit is set, an ETR informs the RLOC-Probing ITR that the 807 locator address for which this bit is set is the one being RLOC- 808 probed and may be different from the source address of the Map- 809 Reply. An ITR that RLOC-probes a particular Locator MUST use this 810 Locator for retrieving the data structure used to store the fact 811 that the Locator is reachable. The p-bit is set for a single 812 Locator in the same Locator-Set. If an implementation sets more 813 than one p-bit erroneously, the receiver of the Map-Reply MUST 814 select the first set p-bit Locator. The p-bit MUST NOT be set for 815 Locator-Set records sent in Map-Request and Map-Register messages. 817 R: This is set when the sender of a Map-Reply has a route to the 818 Locator in the Locator data record. This receiver may find this 819 useful to know if the Locator is up but not necessarily reachable 820 from the receiver's point of view. See also EID-Reachability 821 Section 7.1 for another way the R-bit may be used. 823 Locator: This is an IPv4 or IPv6 address (as encoded by the 'Loc- 824 AFI' field) assigned to an ETR and used by an ITR as a destination 825 RLOC address in the outer header of a LISP encapsualted packet. 826 Note that the destination RLOC address of a LISP encapsulated 827 packet MAY be an anycast address. A source RLOC of a LISP 828 encapsulated packet can be an anycast address as well. The source 829 or destination RLOC MUST NOT be the broadcast address 830 (255.255.255.255 or any subnet broadcast address known to the 831 router) and MUST NOT be a link-local multicast address. The 832 source RLOC MUST NOT be a multicast address. The destination RLOC 833 SHOULD be a multicast address if it is being mapped from a 834 multicast destination EID. 836 Map-Reply MUST be rate-limited, it is RECOMMENDED that a Map-Reply 837 for the same destination RLOC be sent no more than one packets per 3 838 seconds. 840 The Record format, as defined here, is used both in the Map-Reply and 841 Map-Register messages, this includes all the field definitions. 843 5.5. EID-to-RLOC UDP Map-Reply Message 845 A Map-Reply returns an EID-Prefix with a mask-length that is less 846 than or equal to the EID being requested. The EID being requested is 847 either from the destination field of an IP header of a Data-Probe or 848 the EID record of a Map-Request. The RLOCs in the Map-Reply are 849 routable IP addresses of all ETRs for the LISP site. Each RLOC 850 conveys status reachability but does not convey path reachability 851 from a requester's perspective. Separate testing of path 852 reachability is required. See RLOC-reachability Section 7.1 for 853 details. 855 Note that a Map-Reply MAY contain different EID-Prefix granularity 856 (prefix + mask-length) than the Map-Request that triggers it. This 857 might occur if a Map-Request were for a prefix that had been returned 858 by an earlier Map-Reply. In such a case, the requester updates its 859 cache with the new prefix information and granularity. For example, 860 a requester with two cached EID-Prefixes that are covered by a Map- 861 Reply containing one less-specific prefix replaces the entry with the 862 less-specific EID-Prefix. Note that the reverse, replacement of one 863 less-specific prefix with multiple more-specific prefixes, can also 864 occur, not by removing the less-specific prefix but rather by adding 865 the more-specific prefixes that, during a lookup, will override the 866 less-specific prefix. 868 When an EID moves out of a LISP site [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility], 869 the database mapping system may have overlapping EID-prefixes. Or 870 when a LISP site is configured with multiple sets of ETRs that 871 support different EID-prefix mask-lengths, the database mapping 872 system may have overlapping EID-prefixes. When overlapping EID- 873 prefixes exist, a Map-Request with an EID that best matches any EID- 874 Prefix MUST be returned in a single Map-Reply message. For instance, 875 if an ETR had database mapping entries for EID-Prefixes: 877 2001:db8::/16 878 2001:db8:1::/24 879 2001:db8:1:1::/32 880 2001:db8:1:2::/32 882 A Map-Request for EID 2001:db8:1:1::1 would cause a Map-Reply with a 883 record count of 1 to be returned with a mapping record EID-Prefix of 884 2001:db8:1:1::/32. 886 A Map-Request for EID 2001:db8:1:5::5 would cause a Map-Reply with a 887 record count of 3 to be returned with mapping records for EID- 888 Prefixes 2001:db8:1::/24, 2001:db8:1:1::/32, 2001:db8:1:2::/32, 889 filling out the /24 with more-specifics that exist in the mapping 890 system. 892 Note that not all overlapping EID-Prefixes need to be returned but 893 only the more-specific entries (note that in the second example above 894 2001:db8::/16 was not returned for requesting EID 2001:db8:1:5::5) 895 for the matching EID-Prefix of the requesting EID. When more than 896 one EID-Prefix is returned, all SHOULD use the same Time to Live 897 value so they can all time out at the same time. When a more- 898 specific EID-Prefix is received later, its Time to Live value in the 899 Map-Reply record can be stored even when other less-specific entries 900 exist. When a less-specific EID-Prefix is received later, its Map- 901 Cache expiration time SHOULD be set to the minimum expiration time of 902 any more-specific EID-Prefix in the Map-Cache. This is done so the 903 integrity of the EID-Prefix set is wholly maintained and so no more- 904 specific entries are removed from the Map-Cache while keeping less- 905 specific entries. 907 For scalability, it is expected that aggregation of EID addresses 908 into EID-Prefixes will allow one Map-Reply to satisfy a mapping for 909 the EID addresses in the prefix range, thereby reducing the number of 910 Map-Request messages. 912 Map-Reply records can have an empty Locator-Set. A Negative Map- 913 Reply is a Map-Reply with an empty Locator-Set. Negative Map-Replies 914 convey special actions by the sender to the ITR or PITR that have 915 solicited the Map-Reply. There are two primary applications for 916 Negative Map-Replies. The first is for a Map-Resolver to instruct an 917 ITR or PITR when a destination is for a LISP site versus a non-LISP 918 site, and the other is to source quench Map-Requests that are sent 919 for non-allocated EIDs. 921 For each Map-Reply record, the list of Locators in a Locator-Set MUST 922 be sorted in order of ascending IP address where an IPv4 locator 923 address is considered numerically 'less than' an IPv6 locator 924 address. 926 When sending a Map-Reply message, the destination address is copied 927 from one of the 'ITR-RLOC' fields from the Map-Request. The ETR can 928 choose a locator address from one of the address families it 929 supports. For Data-Probes, the destination address of the Map-Reply 930 is copied from the source address of the Data-Probe message that is 931 invoking the reply. The source address of the Map-Reply is one of 932 the local IP addresses chosen, to allow Unicast Reverse Path 933 Forwarding (uRPF) checks to succeed in the upstream service provider. 934 The destination port of a Map-Reply message is copied from the source 935 port of the Map-Request or Data-Probe, and the source port of the 936 Map-Reply message is set to the well-known UDP port 4342. 938 5.6. Map-Register Message Format 940 This section specifies the encoding format for the Map-Register 941 message. The message is sent in UDP with a destination UDP port of 942 4342 and a randomly selected UDP source port number. 944 The fields below are used in multiple control messages. They are 945 defined for Map-Register, Map-Notify and Map-Notify-Ack message 946 types. 948 The Map-Register message format is: 950 0 1 2 3 951 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 1 952 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 953 |Type=3 |P|S|I| Reserved |E|T|a|R|M| Record Count | 954 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 955 | Nonce . . . | 956 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 957 | . . . Nonce | 958 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 959 | Key ID | Algorithm ID | Authentication Data Length | 960 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 961 ~ Authentication Data ~ 962 +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 963 | | Record TTL | 964 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 965 R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | 966 e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 967 c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI | 968 o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 969 r | EID-Prefix | 970 d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 971 | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | 972 | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 973 | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | 974 | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 975 | \| Locator | 976 +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 978 Packet field descriptions: 980 Type: 3 (Map-Register) 982 P: This is the proxy Map-Reply bit. When set to 1, the ETR sending 983 the Map-Register message is requesting the Map-Server to proxy a 984 Map-Reply. The Map-Server will send non-authoritative Map-Replies 985 on behalf of the ETR. 987 S: This is the security-capable bit. When set, the procedures from 988 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] are supported. 990 I: This is the ID-present bit. This bit is set to 1 to indicate that 991 a 128 bit xTR-ID and a 64 bit Site-ID fields are present at the 992 end of the Map-Register message. If an xTR is configured with an 993 xTR-ID and Site-ID, it MUST set the I bit to 1 and include its 994 xTR-ID and Site-ID in the Map-Register messages it generates. The 995 combination of Site-ID plus xTR-ID uniquely identifies an xTR in a 996 LISP domain and serves to track its last seen nonce. 998 Reserved: This unassigned field MUST be set to 0 on transmit and 999 MUST be ignored on receipt. 1001 E: This is the Map-Register EID-notify bit. This is used by a First- 1002 Hop-Router (FHR) which discovers a dynamic-EID. This EID-notify 1003 based Map-Register is sent by the FHR to the same site xTR that 1004 propogates the Map-Register to the mapping system. The site xTR 1005 keeps state to later Map-Notify the FHR after the EID has moves 1006 away. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] for a detailed use-case. 1008 T: This is the use-TTL for timeout bit. When set to 1, the xTR wants 1009 the Map-Server to time out registrations based on the value in the 1010 "Record TTL" field of this message. Otherwise, the default 1011 timeout described in Section 8.2 is used. 1013 a: This is the merge-request bit. When set to 1, the xTR requests to 1014 merge RLOC-records from different xTRs registering the same EID- 1015 record. See signal-free multicast [RFC8378] for one use case 1016 example. 1018 R: This reserved and unassigned bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit and 1019 MUST be ignored on receipt. 1021 M: This is the want-map-notify bit. When set to 1, an ETR is 1022 requesting a Map-Notify message to be returned in response to 1023 sending a Map-Register message. The Map-Notify message sent by a 1024 Map-Server is used to acknowledge receipt of a Map-Register 1025 message. 1027 Record Count: This is the number of records in this Map-Register 1028 message. A record is comprised of that portion of the packet 1029 labeled 'Record' above and occurs the number of times equal to 1030 Record Count. 1032 Nonce: This 8-octet 'Nonce' field is incremented each time a Map- 1033 Register message is sent. When a Map-Register acknowledgement is 1034 requested, the nonce is returned by Map-Servers in Map-Notify 1035 messages. Since the entire Map-Register message is authenticated, 1036 the 'Nonce' field serves to protect against Map-Register replay 1037 attacks. An ETR that registers to the mapping system SHOULD store 1038 the last nonce sent in persistent storage so when it restarts it 1039 can continue using an incrementing nonce. If the the ETR cannot 1040 support saving the nonce, then when it restarts it MUST use a new 1041 authentication key to register to the mapping system. A Map- 1042 Server MUST track and save in persistent storage the last nonce 1043 received for each ETR xTR-ID and key pair. If a Map-Register is 1044 received with a nonce value that is not greater than the saved 1045 nonce, it drops the Map-Register message and logs the fact a 1046 replay attack could have occurred. 1048 Key ID: A key-id value that identifies a pre-shared secret between 1049 an ETR and a Map-Server. Per-message keys are derived from the 1050 pre-shared secret to authenticate the origin and protect the 1051 integrity of the Map-Register. The Key ID allows to rotate 1052 between multiple pre-shared secrets in a non disruptive way. The 1053 pre-shared secret MUST be unique per each LISP "Site-ID" 1055 Algorithm ID: This field identifies the Key Derivation Function 1056 (KDF) and Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithms used to 1057 derive the key and to compute the Authentication Data of a Map- 1058 Register. This 8-bit field identifies the KDF and MAC algorithm 1059 pair. See Section 12.5 for codepoint assignments. 1061 Authentication Data Length: This is the length in octets of the 1062 'Authentication Data' field that follows this field. The length 1063 of the 'Authentication Data' field is dependent on the MAC 1064 algorithm used. The length field allows a device that doesn't 1065 know the MAC algorithm to correctly parse the packet. 1067 Authentication Data: This is the output of the MAC algorithm placed 1068 in this field after the MAC computation. The MAC output is 1069 computed as follows: 1071 1: The KDF algorithm is identified by the field 'Algorithm ID' 1072 according to the table in Section 12.5. Implementations of 1073 this specification MUST implement HMAC-SHA-256-128 and SHOULD 1074 implement HMAC-SHA256-128+HKDF-SHA256 [RFC4868]. 1076 2: The MAC algorithm is identified by the field 'Algorithm ID' 1077 according to the table in Section 12.5. 1079 3: The pre-shared secret used to derive the per-message key is 1080 represented by PSK[Key ID], that is the pre-shared secret 1081 identified by the 'Key ID'. 1083 4: The derived per-message key is computed as: per-msg- 1084 key=KDF(nonce+s+PSK[Key ID]). Where the nonce is the value in 1085 the Nonce field of the Map-Register and 's' is a string equal 1086 to "Map-Register Authentication". For those Algorithm IDs 1087 defined in section Section 12.5 that specify a 'none' KDF, the 1088 per-message key is computed as: per-msg-key = PSK[Key ID]. 1089 This means that the same key is used across multiple protocol 1090 messages. 1092 5: The MAC output is computed using the MAC algorithm and the 1093 per-msg-key over the entire Map-Register payload (from and 1094 including the LISP message type field through the end of the 1095 last RLOC record) with the authenticated data field preset to 1096 0. 1098 The definition of the rest of the Map-Register can be found in EID- 1099 record description in Section 5.4. When the I-bit is set, the 1100 following fields are added to the end of the Map-Register message: 1102 xTR-ID: xTR-ID is a 128 bit field at the end of the Map-Register 1103 message, starting after the final Record in the message. The xTR- 1104 ID is used to uniquely identify a xTR. The same xTR-ID value MUST 1105 NOT be used in two different xTRs in the scope of the Site-ID. 1107 Site-ID: Site-ID is a 64 bit field at the end of the Map- Register 1108 message, following the xTR-ID. Site-ID is used to uniquely 1109 identify to which site the xTR that sent the message belongs. 1110 This document does not specify a strict meaning for the Site-ID 1111 field. Informally it provides an indication that a group of xTRs 1112 have some relation, either administratively, topologically or 1113 otherwise. 1115 5.7. Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack Message Format 1117 This section specifies the encoding format for the Map-Notify and 1118 Map-Notify-Ack messages. The messages are sent inside a UDP packet 1119 with source and destination UDP ports equal to 4342. 1121 The Map-Notify and Map-Notify-Ack message formats are: 1123 0 1 2 3 1124 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 1125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1126 |Type=4/5| Reserved | Record Count | 1127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1128 | Nonce . . . | 1129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1130 | . . . Nonce | 1131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1132 | Key ID | Algorithm ID | Authentication Data Length | 1133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1134 ~ Authentication Data ~ 1135 +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1136 | | Record TTL | 1137 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1138 R | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | 1139 e +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1140 c | Rsvd | Map-Version Number | EID-Prefix-AFI | 1141 o +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1142 r | EID-Prefix | 1143 d +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1144 | /| Priority | Weight | M Priority | M Weight | 1145 | L +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1146 | o | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | 1147 | c +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1148 | \| Locator | 1149 +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1151 Packet field descriptions: 1153 Type: 4/5 (Map-Notify/Map-Notify-Ack) 1155 The Map-Notify message has the same contents as a Map-Register 1156 message. See the Map-Register section for field descriptions and the 1157 Map-Reply section for EID-record and RLOC-record descriptions. 1159 The fields of the Map-Notify are copied from the corresponding Map- 1160 Register to acknowledge its correct processing. In the Map-Notfiy, 1161 the 'Authentication Data' field is recomputed according to the 1162 procedure defined in the previous section. For an unsolicited Map- 1163 Notify, the fields of a Map-Notify used for publish/subscribe are 1164 specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub]. 1166 After sending a Map-Register, if a Map-Notify is not received after 1 1167 second the transmitter MUST re-transmit the original Map-Register 1168 with an exponential backoff (base of 2, that is, the next backoff 1169 timeout interval is doubled), the maximum backoff is 1 minute. 1171 The Map-Notify-Ack message has the same contents as a Map-Notify 1172 message. It is used to acknowledge the receipt of a Map-Notify and 1173 for the sender to stop retransmitting a Map-Notify with the same 1174 nonce and the authentication data validates. The fields of the Map- 1175 Notify-Ack are copied from the corresponding Map-Notify message to 1176 acknowledge its correct processing. The 'Authentication Data' field 1177 is recomputed according to the procedure defined in the previous 1178 section. 1180 A Map-Server sends an unsolicited Map-Notify message (one that is not 1181 used as an acknowledgment to a Map-Register message) in only 1182 conformance the Congestion Control And Relability Guideline sections 1183 of [RFC8085]. A Map-Notify is retransmitted until a Map-Notify-Ack 1184 is received by the Map-Server with the same nonce used in the Map- 1185 Notify message. If a Map-Notify-Ack is never received by the Map- 1186 Server, it issues a log message. An implementation SHOULD retransmit 1187 up to 3 times at 3 second retransmission intervals, after which time 1188 the retransmission interval is exponentially backed-off (base of 2, 1189 that is, the next backoff timeout interval is doubled) for another 3 1190 retransmission attempts. 1192 Upon reception of Map-Register, Map-Notify or Map-Notifiy-Ack, the 1193 receiver verifies the authentication data. 1195 5.8. Encapsulated Control Message Format 1197 An Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) is used to encapsulate control 1198 packets sent between xTRs and the mapping database system or internal 1199 to the mapping database system. 1201 0 1 2 3 1202 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 1203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1204 / | IPv4 or IPv6 Header | 1205 OH | (uses RLOC addresses) | 1206 \ | | 1207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1208 / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4342 | 1209 UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1210 \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | 1211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1212 LISP |Type=8 |S|D|R|R| Reserved | 1213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1214 / | IPv4 or IPv6 Header | 1215 IH | (uses RLOC or EID addresses) | 1216 \ | | 1217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1218 / | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = yyyy | 1219 UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1220 \ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | 1221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1222 LCM | LISP Control Message | 1223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1225 Packet header descriptions: 1227 OH: The outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, which uses RLOC addresses in the 1228 source and destination header address fields. 1230 UDP: The outer UDP header with destination port 4342. The source 1231 port is randomly allocated. The checksum field MUST be non- 1232 zero. 1234 LISP: Type 8 is defined to be a "LISP Encapsulated Control Message", 1235 and what follows is either an IPv4 or IPv6 header as encoded by 1236 the first 4 bits after the 'Reserved' field. 1238 Type: 8 (Encapsulated Control Message (ECM)) 1240 S: This is the Security bit. When set to 1, the field following 1241 the 'Reserved' field will have the following Authentication 1242 Data format and follow the procedures from [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 1244 0 1 2 3 1245 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 1246 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1247 | AD Type | Authentication Data Content . . . | 1248 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1250 D: This is the DDT-bit. When set to 1, the sender is requesting a 1251 Map-Referral message to be returned. The details of this 1252 procedure are described in [RFC8111]. 1254 R: This reserved and unassigned bit MUST be set to 0 on transmit 1255 and MUST be ignored on receipt. 1257 IH: The inner IPv4 or IPv6 header, which can use either RLOC or EID 1258 addresses in the header address fields. When a Map-Request is 1259 encapsulated in this packet format, the destination address in 1260 this header is an EID. 1262 UDP: The inner UDP header, where the port assignments depend on the 1263 control packet being encapsulated. When the control packet is 1264 a Map-Request or Map-Register, the source port is selected by 1265 the ITR/PITR and the destination port is 4342. When the 1266 control packet is a Map-Reply, the source port is 4342 and the 1267 destination port is assigned from the source port of the 1268 invoking Map-Request. Port number 4341 MUST NOT be assigned to 1269 either port. The checksum field MUST be non-zero. 1271 LCM: The format is one of the control message formats described in 1272 Section 5. Map-Request messages are allowed to be Control- 1273 Plane (ECM) encapsulated. When Map-Requests are sent for RLOC- 1274 Probing purposes (i.e. the probe-bit is set), they MUST NOT be 1275 sent inside Encapsulated Control Messages. PIM Join/Prune 1276 messages [RFC6831] are also allowed to be Control-Plane (ECM) 1277 encapsulated. 1279 6. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings 1281 In the LISP architecture ITRs/PITRs use a local Map-Cache to store 1282 EID-to-RLOC mappings for forwarding. When an ETR updates a mapping a 1283 mechanism is required to inform ITRs/PITRs that are using such 1284 mappings. 1286 The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanism to update mappings 1287 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. This document specifies the Solicit-Map 1288 Request (SMR), a Control-Plane push-based mechanism. An additional 1289 Control-Plane mechanism based on the Publish/subscribe paradigm is 1290 specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub]. 1292 6.1. Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) 1294 Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site 1295 where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for 1296 Map-Reply messages. SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update 1297 the mappings they have cached. 1299 Since ETRs are not required to keep track of remote ITRs that have 1300 cached their mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their 1301 mappings updated. As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests 1302 (called an SMR message) to those sites to which it has been sending 1303 LISP encapsulated data packets for the last minute. As a result, 1304 when an ETR is also acting as ITR, it will send an SMR to an ITR to 1305 which it has recently sent encapsulated data. 1307 An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message. An ITR 1308 or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message. 1309 Both the SMR sender and the SMR responder MUST rate-limit these 1310 messages. It is RECOMMENDED that the SMR sender rate-limits Map- 1311 Request for the same destination RLOC to no more than one packet per 1312 3 seconds. It is RECOMMENDED that the SMR responder rate-limits Map- 1313 Request for the same EID-Prefix to no more than once per 3 seconds. 1315 For security reasons, an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map- 1316 Replies. To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a 1317 sender of an SMR message MUST be verified. If an ITR receives an SMR 1318 message and the source is not in the Locator-Set for the stored Map- 1319 Cache entry, then the responding Map-Request MUST be sent with an EID 1320 destination to the mapping database system. Since the mapping 1321 database system is a more secure way to reach an authoritative ETR, 1322 it will deliver the Map-Request to the authoritative source of the 1323 mapping data. Please note that this procedure does not result in 1324 cryptographic or strongly authenticated verification. 1326 When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not 1327 have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it SHOULD NOT 1328 send an SMR-invoked Map-Request. This scenario can occur when an ETR 1329 sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored 1330 in its Map-Cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be 1331 sending packets to the site. There is no point in updating the ITRs 1332 until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to 1333 obtain a Map-Cache entry. 1335 7. Routing Locator Reachability 1337 This document defines several Control-Plane mechanisms for 1338 determining RLOC reachability. Please note that additional Data- 1339 Plane reachability mechanisms are defined in 1340 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. 1342 1. An ITR may receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host 1343 Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using. This indicates that 1344 the RLOC is likely down. Note that trusting ICMP messages may 1345 not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely. 1346 Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices 1347 in treating these conditions [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering]. 1349 2. When an ITR participates in the routing protocol that operates in 1350 the underlay routing system, it can determine that an RLOC is 1351 down when no Routing Information Base (RIB) entry exists that 1352 matches the RLOC IP address. 1354 3. An ITR may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a 1355 destination host. This occurs if an ITR attempts to use 1356 interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a 1357 non-LISP-capable site. 1359 4. An ITR may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a 1360 previously sent Map-Request. The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is 1361 likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the 1362 ITR. 1364 5. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'RLOC-Probing' mechanism described 1365 below. 1367 When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable 1368 messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain 1369 from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map- 1370 Replies. However, using this approach is unreliable because many 1371 network operators turn off generation of ICMP Destination Unreachable 1372 messages. 1374 If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host 1375 Unreachable message, it MAY originate its own ICMP Destination 1376 Unreachable message destined for the host that originated the data 1377 packet the ITR encapsulated. 1379 This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is 1380 detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages. When a 1381 Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for 1382 active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply 1383 with Priority 255. 1385 The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by 1386 sending periodic Requests. Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate- 1387 limited, see Section 5.3 and Section 5.4 for information about rate- 1388 limiting. Locator reachability testing is never done with data 1389 packets, since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end 1390 sessions. 1392 7.1. RLOC-Probing Algorithm 1394 RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the 1395 reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a 1396 Map-Cache entry. The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply 1397 messages is used for RLOC-Probing. 1399 RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an 1400 ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator 1401 address from one of its own locator addresses. A Map-Request used as 1402 an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to 1403 the mapping database system as one would when requesting mapping 1404 data. The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of 1405 the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR. The ITR MAY include a 1406 mapping data record for its own database mapping information that 1407 contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site. RLOC-probes 1408 are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval. 1410 When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it 1411 returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set. The source address of 1412 the Map-Reply is set to the IP address of the outgoing interface the 1413 Map-Reply destination address routes to. The Map-Reply SHOULD 1414 contain mapping data for the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request. 1415 This provides the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC- 1416 probe to get mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's 1417 database mapping entries. 1419 There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC-Probing. The main 1420 benefit of RLOC-Probing is that it can handle many failure scenarios 1421 allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific Locator is 1422 reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust 1423 mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached 1424 Locator. RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT) 1425 estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network 1426 management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths. The 1427 major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control 1428 messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those 1429 benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times 1430 is very small. 1432 8. Interactions with Other LISP Components 1434 8.1. ITR EID-to-RLOC Mapping Resolution 1436 An ITR is configured with one or more Map-Resolver addresses. These 1437 addresses are "Locators" (or RLOCs) and MUST be routable on the 1438 underlying core network; they MUST NOT need to be resolved through 1439 LISP EID-to-RLOC mapping, as that would introduce a circular 1440 dependency. When using a Map-Resolver, an ITR does not need to 1441 connect to any other database mapping system. 1443 An ITR sends an Encapsulated Map-Request to a configured Map-Resolver 1444 when it needs an EID-to-RLOC mapping that is not found in its local 1445 Map-Cache. Using the Map-Resolver greatly reduces both the 1446 complexity of the ITR implementation and the costs associated with 1447 its operation. 1449 In response to an Encapsulated Map-Request, the ITR can expect one of 1450 the following: 1452 o An immediate Negative Map-Reply (with action code of "Natively- 1453 Forward", 15-minute Time to Live (TTL)) from the Map-Resolver if 1454 the Map-Resolver can determine that the requested EID does not 1455 exist. The ITR saves the EID-Prefix returned in the Map-Reply in 1456 its cache, marks it as non-LISP-capable, and knows not to attempt 1457 LISP encapsulation for destinations matching it. 1459 o A Negative Map-Reply, with action code of "Natively-Forward", from 1460 a Map-Server that is authoritative (within the LISP deployment 1461 Section 1.1) for an EID-Prefix that matches the requested EID but 1462 that does not have an actively registered, more-specific EID- 1463 prefix. In this case, the requested EID is said to match a "hole" 1464 in the authoritative EID-Prefix. If the requested EID matches a 1465 more-specific EID-Prefix that has been delegated by the Map-Server 1466 but for which no ETRs are currently registered, a 1-minute TTL is 1467 returned. If the requested EID matches a non-delegated part of 1468 the authoritative EID-Prefix, then it is not a LISP EID and a 1469 15-minute TTL is returned. See Section 8.2 for discussion of 1470 aggregate EID-Prefixes and details of Map-Server EID-Prefix 1471 matching. 1473 o A LISP Map-Reply from the ETR that owns the EID-to-RLOC mapping or 1474 possibly from a Map-Server answering on behalf of the ETR. See 1475 Section 8.4 for more details on Map-Resolver message processing. 1477 Note that an ITR may be configured to both use a Map-Resolver and to 1478 participate in a LISP-ALT logical network. In such a situation, the 1479 ITR SHOULD send Map-Requests through the ALT network for any EID- 1480 Prefix learned via ALT BGP. Such a configuration is expected to be 1481 very rare, since there is little benefit to using a Map-Resolver if 1482 an ITR is already using LISP-ALT. There would be, for example, no 1483 need for such an ITR to send a Map-Request to a possibly non-existent 1484 EID (and rely on Negative Map-Replies) if it can consult the ALT 1485 database to verify that an EID-Prefix is present before sending that 1486 Map-Request. 1488 8.2. EID-Prefix Configuration and ETR Registration 1490 An ETR publishes its EID-Prefixes on a Map-Server by sending LISP 1491 Map-Register messages. A Map-Register message includes 1492 authentication data, so prior to sending a Map-Register message, the 1493 ETR and Map-Server MUST be configured with a pre-shared secret used 1494 to derive Map-Register authentication keys. A Map-Server's 1495 configuration SHOULD also include a list of the EID-Prefixes for 1496 which each ETR is authoritative. Upon receipt of a Map-Register from 1497 an ETR, a Map-Server accepts only EID-Prefixes that are configured 1498 for that ETR. Failure to implement such a check would leave the 1499 mapping system vulnerable to trivial EID-Prefix hijacking attacks. 1501 In addition to the set of EID-Prefixes defined for each ETR that may 1502 register, a Map-Server is typically also configured with one or more 1503 aggregate prefixes that define the part of the EID numbering space 1504 assigned to it. When LISP-ALT is the database in use, aggregate EID- 1505 Prefixes are implemented as discard routes and advertised into ALT 1506 BGP. The existence of aggregate EID-Prefixes in a Map-Server's 1507 database means that it may receive Map Requests for EID-Prefixes that 1508 match an aggregate but do not match a registered prefix; Section 8.3 1509 describes how this is handled. 1511 Map-Register messages are sent periodically from an ETR to a Map- 1512 Server with a suggested interval between messages of one minute. A 1513 Map-Server SHOULD time out and remove an ETR's registration if it has 1514 not received a valid Map-Register message within the past 1515 three minutes. When first contacting a Map-Server after restart or 1516 changes to its EID-to-RLOC database mappings, an ETR MAY initially 1517 send Map-Register messages at an increased frequency, up to one every 1518 20 seconds. This "quick registration" period is limited to 1519 five minutes in duration. 1521 An ETR MAY request that a Map-Server explicitly acknowledge receipt 1522 and processing of a Map-Register message by setting the "want-map- 1523 notify" (M-bit) flag. A Map-Server that receives a Map-Register with 1524 this flag set will respond with a Map-Notify message. Typical use of 1525 this flag by an ETR would be to set it for Map-Register messages sent 1526 during the initial "quick registration" with a Map-Server but then 1527 set it only occasionally during steady-state maintenance of its 1528 association with that Map-Server. Note that the Map-Notify message 1529 is sent to UDP destination port 4342, not to the source port 1530 specified in the original Map-Register message. 1532 Note that a one-minute minimum registration interval during 1533 maintenance of an ETR-Map-Server association places a lower bound on 1534 how quickly and how frequently a mapping database entry can be 1535 updated. This may have implications for what sorts of mobility can 1536 be supported directly by the mapping system; shorter registration 1537 intervals or other mechanisms might be needed to support faster 1538 mobility in some cases. For a discussion on one way that faster 1539 mobility may be implemented for individual devices, please see 1540 [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]. 1542 An ETR MAY also request, by setting the "proxy Map-Reply" flag 1543 (P-bit) in the Map-Register message, that a Map-Server answer Map- 1544 Requests instead of forwarding them to the ETR. See Section 7.1 for 1545 details on how the Map-Server sets certain flags (such as those 1546 indicating whether the message is authoritative and how returned 1547 Locators SHOULD be treated) when sending a Map-Reply on behalf of an 1548 ETR. When an ETR requests proxy reply service, it SHOULD include all 1549 RLOCs for all ETRs for the EID-Prefix being registered, along with 1550 the routable flag ("R-bit") setting for each RLOC. The Map-Server 1551 includes all of this information in Map-Reply messages that it sends 1552 on behalf of the ETR. This differs from a non-proxy registration, 1553 since the latter need only provide one or more RLOCs for a Map-Server 1554 to use for forwarding Map-Requests; the registration information is 1555 not used in Map-Replies, so it being incomplete is not incorrect. 1557 An ETR that uses a Map-Server to publish its EID-to-RLOC mappings 1558 does not need to participate further in the mapping database 1559 protocol(s). When using a LISP-ALT mapping database, for example, 1560 this means that the ETR does not need to implement GRE or BGP, which 1561 greatly simplifies its configuration and reduces its cost of 1562 operation. 1564 Note that use of a Map-Server does not preclude an ETR from also 1565 connecting to the mapping database (i.e., it could also connect to 1566 the LISP-ALT network), but doing so doesn't seem particularly useful, 1567 as the whole purpose of using a Map-Server is to avoid the complexity 1568 of the mapping database protocols. 1570 8.3. Map-Server Processing 1572 Once a Map-Server has EID-Prefixes registered by its client ETRs, it 1573 can accept and process Map-Requests for them. 1575 In response to a Map-Request, the Map-Server first checks to see if 1576 the destination EID matches a configured EID-Prefix. If there is no 1577 match, the Map-Server returns a Negative Map-Reply with action code 1578 "Natively-Forward" and a 15-minute TTL. This can occur if a Map 1579 Request is received for a configured aggregate EID-Prefix for which 1580 no more-specific EID-Prefix exists; it indicates the presence of a 1581 non-LISP "hole" in the aggregate EID-Prefix. 1583 Next, the Map-Server checks to see if any ETRs have registered the 1584 matching EID-Prefix. If none are found, then the Map-Server returns 1585 a Negative Map-Reply with action code "Natively-Forward" and a 1586 1-minute TTL. 1588 If the EID-prefix is either registered or not registered to the 1589 mapping system and there is a policy in the Map-Server to have the 1590 requestor drop packets for the matching EID-prefix, then a Drop/ 1591 Policy-Denied action is returned. If the EID-prefix is registered or 1592 not registered and there is a authentication failure, then a Drop/ 1593 Authentication- failure action is returned. If either of these 1594 actions result as a temporary state in policy or authentication then 1595 a Send-Map-Request action with 1-minute TTL MAY be returned to allow 1596 the requestor to retry the Map-Request. 1598 If any of the registered ETRs for the EID-Prefix have requested proxy 1599 reply service, then the Map-Server answers the request instead of 1600 forwarding it. It returns a Map-Reply with the EID-Prefix, RLOCs, 1601 and other information learned through the registration process. 1603 If none of the ETRs have requested proxy reply service, then the Map- 1604 Server re-encapsulates and forwards the resulting Encapsulated Map- 1605 Request to one of the registered ETRs. It does not otherwise alter 1606 the Map-Request, so any Map-Reply sent by the ETR is returned to the 1607 RLOC in the Map-Request, not to the Map-Server. Unless also acting 1608 as a Map-Resolver, a Map-Server should never receive Map-Replies; any 1609 such messages SHOULD be discarded without response, perhaps 1610 accompanied by the logging of a diagnostic message if the rate of 1611 Map-Replies is suggestive of malicious traffic. 1613 8.4. Map-Resolver Processing 1615 Upon receipt of an Encapsulated Map-Request, a Map-Resolver 1616 decapsulates the enclosed message and then searches for the requested 1617 EID in its local database of mapping entries (statically configured 1618 or learned from associated ETRs if the Map-Resolver is also a Map- 1619 Server offering proxy reply service). If it finds a matching entry, 1620 it returns a LISP Map-Reply with the known mapping. 1622 If the Map-Resolver does not have the mapping entry and if it can 1623 determine that the EID is not in the mapping database (for example, 1624 if LISP-ALT is used, the Map-Resolver will have an ALT forwarding 1625 table that covers the full EID space), it immediately returns a 1626 negative LISP Map-Reply, with action code "Natively-Forward" and a 1627 15-minute TTL. To minimize the number of negative cache entries 1628 needed by an ITR, the Map-Resolver SHOULD return the least-specific 1629 prefix that both matches the original query and does not match any 1630 EID-Prefix known to exist in the LISP-capable infrastructure. 1632 If the Map-Resolver does not have sufficient information to know 1633 whether the EID exists, it needs to forward the Map-Request to 1634 another device that has more information about the EID being 1635 requested. To do this, it forwards the unencapsulated Map-Request, 1636 with the original ITR RLOC as the source, to the mapping database 1637 system. Using LISP-ALT, the Map-Resolver is connected to the ALT 1638 network and sends the Map-Request to the next ALT hop learned from 1639 its ALT BGP neighbors. The Map-Resolver does not send any response 1640 to the ITR; since the source RLOC is that of the ITR, the ETR or Map- 1641 Server that receives the Map-Request over the ALT and responds will 1642 do so directly to the ITR. 1644 8.4.1. Anycast Operation 1646 A Map-Resolver can be set up to use "anycast", where the same address 1647 is assigned to multiple Map-Resolvers and is propagated through IGP 1648 routing, to facilitate the use of a topologically close Map-Resolver 1649 by each ITR. 1651 ETRs MAY have anycast RLOC addresses which are registered as part of 1652 their RLOC-set to the mapping system. However, registrations MUST 1653 use their unique RLOC addresses, distinct authentication keys or 1654 different XTR-IDs to identify security associations with the Map- 1655 Servers. 1657 9. Security Considerations 1659 A LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835]. In what follows we 1660 highlight security considerations that apply when LISP is deployed in 1661 environments such as those specified in Section 1.1, where the 1662 following assumptions hold: 1664 1. The Mapping System is secure and trusted, and for the purpose of 1665 this security considerations the Mapping System is considered as 1666 one trusted element. 1668 2. The ETRs have a pre-configured trust relationship with the 1669 Mapping System, which includes some form of shared secret, and 1670 the Mapping System is aware of which EIDs an ETR can advertise. 1671 How those keys and mappings gets established is out of the scope 1672 of this document. 1674 3. LISP-SEC [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] MUST be implemented. Network 1675 operartors should carefully weight how the LISP-SEC threat model 1676 applies to their particular use case or deployment. If they 1677 decide to ignore a particular recommendation, they should make 1678 sure the risk associated with the corresponding threats is well 1679 understood. 1681 The Map-Request/Map-Reply message exchange can be exploited by an 1682 attacker to mount DoS and/or amplification attacks. Attackers can 1683 send Map-Requests at high rates to overload LISP nodes and increase 1684 the state maintained by such nodes or consume CPU cycles. Such 1685 threats can be mitigated by systematically applying filters and rate 1686 limiters. 1688 The Map-Request/Map-Reply message exchange to inject forged mappings 1689 directly in the ITR EID-to-RLOC map-cache. This can lead to traffic 1690 being redirected to the attacker, see further details in [RFC7835]. 1691 In addition, valid ETRs in the system can perform overclaiming 1692 attacks. In this case, attackers can claim to own an EID-prefix that 1693 is larger than the prefix owned by the ETR. Such attacks can be 1694 addressed by using LISP-SEC [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. The LISP-SEC 1695 protocol defines a mechanism for providing origin authentication, 1696 integrity, protection, and prevention of 'man-in-the-middle' and 1697 'prefix overclaiming' attacks on the Map-Request/Map-Reply exchange. 1698 In addition and while beyond the scope of securing an individual Map- 1699 Server or Map-Resolver, it should be noted that LISP-SEC can be 1700 complemented by additional security mechanisms defined by the Mapping 1701 System Infrastructure. For instance, BGP-based LISP-ALT [RFC6836] 1702 can take advantage of standards work on adding security to BGP while 1703 LISP-DDT [RFC8111] defines its own additional security mechanisms. 1705 To publish an authoritative EID-to-RLOC mapping with a Map-Server 1706 using the Map-Register message, an ETR includes authentication data 1707 that is a MAC of the entire message using a key derived from the pre- 1708 shared secret. An implementation MUST support HMAC-SHA256-128+HKDF- 1709 SHA256 [RFC4868]. The Map-Register message includes protection for 1710 replay attacks by a man-in-the-middle. However, a compromised ETR 1711 can overclaim the prefix it owns and successfully register it on its 1712 corresponding Map-Server. To mitigate this and as noted in 1713 Section 8.2, a Map-Server MUST verify that all EID-Prefixes 1714 registered by an ETR match the configuration stored on the Map- 1715 Server. 1717 Deployments concerned about manipulations of Map-Request and Map- 1718 Reply messages, and malicious ETR EID prefix overclaiming MUST drop 1719 LISP Control Plane messages that do not contain LISP-SEC material 1720 (S-bit, EID-AD, OTK-AD, PKT-AD). 1722 Mechanisms to encrypt, support privacy, prevent eavesdroping and 1723 packet tampering for messages exchanged between xTRs, xTRs and the 1724 mapping system, and nodes that make up the mapping system, SHOULD be 1725 deployed. Examples of this are DTLS [RFC6347] or LISP-crypto 1726 [RFC8061]. 1728 10. Privacy Considerations 1730 As noted by [RFC6973] privacy is a complex issue that greatly depends 1731 on the specific protocol use-case and deployment. As noted in 1732 section 1.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] LISP focuses on use-cases 1733 where entities communicate over the public Internet while keeping 1734 separate addressing and topology. In what follows we detail the 1735 privacy threats introduced by the LISP Control Plane, the analysis is 1736 based on the guidelines detailed in [RFC6973]. 1738 LISP can use long-lived identifiers (EIDs) that survive mobility 1739 events. Such identifiers bind to the RLOCs of the nodes, which 1740 represents the topological location with respect to the specific LISP 1741 deployments. In addition, EID-to-RLOC mappings are typically 1742 considered public information within the LISP deployment when 1743 control-plane messages are not encrypted, and can be eavesdropped 1744 while Map-Request messages are sent to the corresponding Map- 1745 Resolvers or Map-Register messages to Map-Servers. 1747 In this context, attackers can correlate the EID with the RLOC and 1748 track the corresponding user topological location and/or mobility. 1749 This can be achieved by off-path attackers, if they are 1750 authenticated, by querying the mapping system. Deployments concerned 1751 about this threat can use access control-lists or stronger 1752 authentication mechanisms [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] in the mapping 1753 system to make sure that only authorized users can access this 1754 information (data minimization). Use of ephemeral EIDs 1755 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity] to achieve anonymity is another 1756 mechanism to lessen persistency and identity tracking. 1758 11. Changes since RFC 6833 1760 For implementation considerations, the following major changes have 1761 been made to this document since RFC 6833 was published: 1763 o A Map-Notify-Ack message is added in this document to provide 1764 reliability for Map-Notify messages. Any receiver of a Map-Notify 1765 message must respond with a Map-Notify-Ack message. Map-Servers 1766 who are senders of Map-Notify messages, must queue the Map-Notify 1767 contents until they receive a Map-Notify-Ack with the nonce used 1768 in the Map-Notify message. Note that implementations for Map- 1769 Notify-Ack support already exist and predate this document. 1771 o This document is incorporating the codepoint for the Map-Referral 1772 message from the LISP-DDT specification [RFC8111] to indicate that 1773 a Map-Server must send the final Map-Referral message when it 1774 participates in the LISP-DDT mapping system procedures. 1776 o The L" and "D" bits are added to the Map-Request message. See 1777 Section 5.3 for details. 1779 o The "S", "I", "E", "T", "a", "R", and "M" bits are added to the 1780 Map-Register message. See Section 5.6 for details. 1782 o The 16-bit Key-ID field of the Map-Register message has been split 1783 into a 8-bit Key-ID field and a 8-bit Algorithm-ID field. 1785 o The nonce and the authentication data in the Map-Register message 1786 have a different behaviour, see Section 5.6 for details. 1788 o This document adds two new Action values that are in an EID-record 1789 that appear in Map-Reply, Map-Register, Map-Notify, and Map- 1790 Notify-Ack messages. The Drop/Policy-Denied and Drop/Auth-Failure 1791 are the descriptions for the two new action values. See 1792 Section 5.4 for details. 1794 12. IANA Considerations 1796 This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers 1797 Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this 1798 LISP Control-Plane specification, in accordance with BCP 26 1799 [RFC8126]. 1801 There are three namespaces (listed in the sub-sections below) in LISP 1802 that have been registered. 1804 o LISP IANA registry allocations should not be made for purposes 1805 unrelated to LISP routing or transport protocols. 1807 o The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in 1808 BCP 26: "Specification Required", "IETF Review", "Experimental 1809 Use", and "First Come First Served". 1811 12.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers 1813 The IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4342 for the LISP 1814 Control-Plane. IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4342 as 1815 follows: 1817 Keyword Port Transport Layer Description 1818 ------- ---- --------------- ----------- 1819 lisp-control 4342 udp LISP Control Packets 1821 12.2. LISP Packet Type Codes 1823 It is being requested that the IANA be authoritative for LISP Packet 1824 Type definitions and it is requested to replace the [RFC6830] 1825 registry message references with the RFC number assigned to this 1826 document. 1828 Based on deployment experience of [RFC6830], the Map-Notify-Ack 1829 message, message type 5, was added by this document. This document 1830 requests IANA to add it to the LISP Packet Type Registry. 1832 Name Number Defined in 1833 ---- ------ ----------- 1834 LISP Map-Notify-Ack 5 RFC6833bis 1836 12.3. LISP Map-Reply EID-Record Action Codes 1838 New ACT values can be allocated through IETF review or IESG approval. 1839 Four values have already been allocated by [RFC6830], IANA is 1840 requested to replace the [RFC6830] reference for this registry with 1841 the RFC number assigned to this document and the [RFC6830]. Action 1842 values references with the RFC number assigned to this document. 1843 This specification changes the name of ACT type 3 value from "Drop" 1844 to "Drop/No-Reason" as well as adding two new ACT values, the "Drop/ 1845 Policy-Denied" (type 4) and "Drop/Authentication-Failure" (type 5). 1847 +-------+--------------------+-------------------------+------------+ 1848 | Value | Action | Description | Raeference | 1849 +-------+--------------------+-------------------------+------------+ 1850 | 4 | Drop/Policy-Denied | A packet matching this | RFC6833bis | 1851 | | | Map-Cache entry is | | 1852 | | | dropped because | | 1853 | | | the target EWID is | | 1854 | | | policy-denied by the | | 1855 | | | xTR or the mapping | | 1856 | | | system. | | 1857 | 5 | Drop/Auth-Failure | Packet matching the | RFC6833bis | 1858 | | | Map-Cache entry is | | 1859 | | | dropped beacuse the | | 1860 | | | Map-Request for the | | 1861 | | | target EID fails an | | 1862 | | | authentication check | | 1863 | | | by the xTR or the | | 1864 | | | mapping system. | | 1865 +-------+--------------------+-------------------------+------------+ 1867 LISP Map-Reply Action Values 1869 In addition, LISP has a number of flag fields and reserved fields, 1870 such as the LISP header flags field [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. New 1871 bits for flags in these fields can be implemented after IETF review 1872 or IESG approval, but these need not be managed by IANA. 1874 12.4. LISP Address Type Codes 1876 LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] is an 8-bit field that 1877 defines LISP-specific encodings for AFI value 16387. LCAF encodings 1878 are used for specific use-cases where different address types for 1879 EID-records and RLOC-records are required. 1881 The IANA registry "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" is 1882 used for LCAF types. The registry for LCAF types use the 1883 Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. Initial values for the 1884 registry as well as further information can be found in [RFC8060]. 1886 Therefore, there is no longer a need for the "LISP Address Type 1887 Codes" registry requested by [RFC6830]. This document requests to 1888 remove it. 1890 12.5. LISP Algorithm ID Numbers 1892 In [RFC6830], a request for a "LISP Key ID Numbers" registry was 1893 submitted. This document renames the registry to "LISP Algorithm ID 1894 Numbers" and requests the IANA to make the name change. 1896 The following Algorithm ID values are defined by this specification 1897 as used in any packet type that references a 'Algorithm ID' field: 1899 Name Number MAC KDF 1900 ------------------------------------------------------- 1901 None 0 None None 1902 HMAC-SHA-1-96-None 1 [RFC2404] None 1903 HMAC-SHA-256-128-None 2 [RFC4868] None 1904 HMAC-SHA256-128+HKDF-SHA2562 3 [RFC4868] [RFC4868] 1906 Number values are in the range of 0 to 255. The allocation of values 1907 is on a first come first served basis. 1909 12.6. LISP Bit Flags 1911 This document asks IANA to create a registry for allocation of bits 1912 in several headers of the LISP control plane, namely in the Map- 1913 Request, Map-Reply, Map-Register, Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) 1914 messages. Bit allocations are also requested for EID-records and 1915 RLOC-records. The registry created should be named "LISP Control 1916 Plane Header Bits". A sub-registry needs to be created per each 1917 message and EID-record. The name of each sub-registry is indicated 1918 below, along with its format and allocation of bits defined in this 1919 document. Any additional bits allocation, requires a specification, 1920 according with [RFC8126] policies. 1922 Sub-Registry: Map-Request Header Bits [Section 5.2]: 1924 0 1 2 3 1925 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 1926 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1927 |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|R|R| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count | 1928 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1929 +---------+---------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ 1930 | Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description | 1931 | Name | | Position | | 1932 +---------+---------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ 1933 | A | map-request-A | 4 | Authoritative Bit | 1934 | M | map-request-M | 5 | Map Data Present Bit | 1935 | P | map-request-P | 6 | RLOC-Probe Request Bit | 1936 | S | map-request-S | 7 | Solicit Map-Request (SMR) | 1937 | | | | Bit | 1938 | p | map-request-p | 8 | Proxy-ITR Bit | 1939 | s | map-request-s | 9 | Solicit Map-Request Invoked | 1940 | | | | Bit | 1941 | L | map-request-L | 17 | Local xTR Bit | 1942 | D | map-request-D | 18 | Don't Map-Reply Bit | 1943 +---------+---------------+-----------+-----------------------------+ 1945 LISP Map-Request Header Bits 1947 Sub-Registry: Map-Reply Header Bits [Section 5.4]: 1949 0 1 2 3 1950 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 1951 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1952 |Type=2 |P|E|S| Reserved | Record Count | 1953 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1955 +-----------+-------------+--------------+------------------------+ 1956 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 1957 +-----------+-------------+--------------+------------------------+ 1958 | P | map-reply-P | 4 | RLOC-Probe Bit | 1959 | E | map-reply-E | 5 | Echo Nonce Capable Bit | 1960 | S | map-reply-S | 6 | Security Bit | 1961 +-----------+-------------+--------------+------------------------+ 1963 LISP Map-Reply Header Bits 1965 Sub-Registry: Map-Register Header Bits [Section 5.6]: 1967 0 1 2 3 1968 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 1969 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1970 |Type=3 |P|S|I| Reserved |E|T|a|R|M| Record Count | 1971 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1972 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 1973 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 1974 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 1975 | P | map-register-P | 4 | Proxy Map-Reply Bit | 1976 | S | map-register-S | 5 | LISP-SEC Capable Bit | 1977 | I | map-register-I | 6 | xTR-ID present flag | 1978 +-----------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+ 1980 LISP Map-Register Header Bits 1982 Sub-Registry: Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) Header Bits 1983 [Section 5.8]: 1985 0 1 2 3 1986 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 1987 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1988 |Type=8 |S|D|E|M| Reserved | 1989 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 1991 +-----------+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+ 1992 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 1993 +-----------+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+ 1994 | S | ecm-S | 4 | Security Bit | 1995 | D | ecm-D | 5 | LISP-DDT Bit | 1996 | E | ecm-E | 6 | Forward to ETR Bit | 1997 | M | ecm-M | 7 | Destined to Map-Server Bit | 1998 +-----------+-----------+--------------+----------------------------+ 2000 LISP Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) Header Bits 2002 Sub-Registry: EID-Record Header Bits [Section 5.4]: 2004 0 1 2 3 2005 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 2006 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2007 | Locator Count | EID mask-len | ACT |A| Reserved | 2008 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2010 +-----------+--------------+--------------+-------------------+ 2011 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 2012 +-----------+--------------+--------------+-------------------+ 2013 | A | eid-record-A | 19 | Authoritative Bit | 2014 +-----------+--------------+--------------+-------------------+ 2016 LISP EID-Record Header Bits 2018 Sub-Registry: RLOC-Record Header Bits [Section 5.4]: 2020 0 1 2 3 2021 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 2022 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2023 | Unused Flags |L|p|R| Loc-AFI | 2024 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 2026 +-----------+---------------+--------------+----------------------+ 2027 | Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description | 2028 +-----------+---------------+--------------+----------------------+ 2029 | L | rloc-record-L | 13 | Local RLOC Bit | 2030 | p | rloc-record-p | 19 | RLOC-Probe Reply Bit | 2031 | R | rloc-record-R | 19 | RLOC Reachable Bit | 2032 +-----------+---------------+--------------+----------------------+ 2034 LISP RLOC-Record Header Bits 2036 13. References 2038 13.1. Normative References 2040 [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] 2041 Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 2042 Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- 2043 lisp-6834bis-04 (work in progress), August 2019. 2045 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 2046 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 2047 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 2048 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-28 (work in progress), 2049 November 2019. 2051 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis] 2052 Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Locator/ID Separation 2053 Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry 2054 for Packet Type Allocations", draft-ietf-lisp- 2055 rfc8113bis-03 (work in progress), January 2019. 2057 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 2058 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 2059 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-19 2060 (work in progress), July 2019. 2062 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 2063 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 2064 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 2065 . 2067 [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within 2068 ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November 2069 1998, . 2071 [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, 2072 "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, 2073 DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, 2074 . 2076 [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- 2077 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, 2078 DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, 2079 . 2081 [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 2082 Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, 2083 January 2012, . 2085 [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage 2086 Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, 2087 March 2017, . 2089 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 2090 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 2091 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 2092 . 2094 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2095 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2096 May 2017, . 2098 13.2. Informative References 2100 [AFI] "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 2101 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 2102 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 2104 [GTP-3GPP] 2105 "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol 2106 User Plane (GTPv1-U)", TS.29.281 2107 https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ 2108 SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=1699, January 2109 2015. 2111 [I-D.herbert-intarea-ila] 2112 Herbert, T. and P. Lapukhov, "Identifier-locator 2113 addressing for IPv6", draft-herbert-intarea-ila-01 (work 2114 in progress), March 2018. 2116 [I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth] 2117 Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA 2118 Authentication and Authorization", draft-ietf-lisp-ecdsa- 2119 auth-02 (work in progress), September 2019. 2121 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity] 2122 Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP 2123 EID Anonymity", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-07 (work in 2124 progress), October 2019. 2126 [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] 2127 Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, 2128 F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a 2129 Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-05 2130 (work in progress), November 2019. 2132 [I-D.ietf-lisp-gpe] 2133 Maino, F., Lemon, J., Agarwal, P., Lewis, D., and M. 2134 Smith, "LISP Generic Protocol Extension", draft-ietf-lisp- 2135 gpe-14 (work in progress), January 2020. 2137 [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] 2138 Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural 2139 Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol 2140 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in 2141 progress), April 2015. 2143 [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] 2144 Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP 2145 Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-06 (work in progress), 2146 September 2019. 2148 [I-D.ietf-lisp-pubsub] 2149 Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Leong, J., Maino, F., 2150 Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Barkai, S., Farinacci, D., 2151 Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., and S. Secci, "Publish/ 2152 Subscribe Functionality for LISP", draft-ietf-lisp- 2153 pubsub-04 (work in progress), September 2019. 2155 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] 2156 Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol 2157 Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-09 (work 2158 in progress), December 2019. 2160 [I-D.ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering] 2161 Gont, F., Gont, G., and C. Pignataro, "Recommendations for 2162 filtering ICMP messages", draft-ietf-opsec-icmp- 2163 filtering-04 (work in progress), July 2013. 2165 [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications] 2166 Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of 2167 Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01 2168 (work in progress), January 2009. 2170 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 2171 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 2172 November 1987, . 2174 [RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the 2175 Internet checksum", RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC1071, 2176 September 1988, . 2178 [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- 2179 Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, 2180 DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, 2181 . 2183 [RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE", 2184 RFC 2890, DOI 10.17487/RFC2890, September 2000, 2185 . 2187 [RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report 2188 from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing", 2189 RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007, 2190 . 2192 [RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms 2193 (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, 2194 DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, 2195 . 2197 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 2198 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 2199 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 2200 . 2202 [RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The 2203 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast 2204 Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January 2205 2013, . 2207 [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, 2208 "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol 2209 (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, 2210 DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, 2211 . 2213 [RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, 2214 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical 2215 Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836, 2216 January 2013, . 2218 [RFC6837] Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to 2219 Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837, 2220 DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013, 2221 . 2223 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 2224 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 2225 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 2226 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 2227 . 2229 [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, 2230 L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual 2231 eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for 2232 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 2233 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, 2234 . 2236 [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID 2237 Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, 2238 DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, 2239 . 2241 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 2242 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 2243 February 2017, . 2245 [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol 2246 (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061, 2247 DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017, 2248 . 2250 [RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. 2251 Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated 2252 Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111, 2253 May 2017, . 2255 [RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID 2256 Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378, 2257 DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018, 2258 . 2260 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 2261 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 2262 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 2263 July 2018, . 2265 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 2267 The original authors would like to thank Greg Schudel, Darrel Lewis, 2268 John Zwiebel, Andrew Partan, Dave Meyer, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper 2269 Skriver, Fabio Maino, and members of the lisp@ietf.org mailing list 2270 for their feedback and helpful suggestions. 2272 Special thanks are due to Noel Chiappa for his extensive work and 2273 thought about caching in Map-Resolvers. 2275 The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the 2276 people who help put LISP on standards track in the IETF. They 2277 include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino, 2278 Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete 2279 Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kuhlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin 2280 Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper, 2281 Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Mohamed 2282 Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The 2283 contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and 2284 robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols. 2286 Appendix B. Document Change Log 2288 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 2290 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-26 2292 o Posted November 2019. 2294 o Fixed the required (MUST implement) authentcation algorithms. 2296 o Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits. 2298 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-25 2300 o Posted June 2019. 2302 o Added change requested by Mirja describing Record Count in an EID- 2303 record. 2305 o Fixed Requirements Notation section per Pete. 2307 o Added KDF for shared-secret 2309 o Specified several rate-limiters for control messages 2311 B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 2313 o Posted February 2019. 2315 o Added suggested text from Albert that Benjamin Kaduk agreed with. 2317 o Added suggested editorial comments from Alvaro's rewview. 2319 o Ran document through IDnits. Fixed bugs found. 2321 B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23 2323 o Posted December 2018. 2325 o Added to Security Considerations section that deployments that 2326 care about prefix over claiming should use LISP-SEC. 2328 o Added to Security Considerations section that DTLS or LISP-crypto 2329 be used for control-plane privacy. 2331 o Make LISP-SEC a normative reference. 2333 o Make it more clear where field descriptions are spec'ed when 2334 referencing to the same fields in other packet types. 2336 B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-22 2338 o Posted week after IETF November 2018. 2340 o No longer need to use IPSEC for replay attacks. 2342 B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-21 2344 o Posted early November 2018. 2346 o Added I-bit back in because its necessary to use for Map-Register 2347 replay attack scenarios. The Map-Server tracks the nonce per xTR- 2348 ID to detect duplicate or replayed Map-Register messages. 2350 B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-20 2352 o Posted late October 2018. 2354 o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and 2355 unassigned". 2357 o Make it more clear how Map-Register nonce processing is performed 2358 in an ETR and Map-Server. 2360 B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 2362 o Posted mid October 2018. 2364 o Added Fabio text to the Security Considerations section. 2366 B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-18 2368 o Posted mid October 2018. 2370 o Fixed comments from Eric after more email clarity. 2372 B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-17 2374 o Posted early October 2018. 2376 o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat. 2378 o Added all flag bit definitions as request for allocation in IANA 2379 Considersations section. 2381 o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security 2382 concerns from Telechat. 2384 o Moved m-bit description and IANA request to draft-ietf-lisp-mn. 2386 o Moved I-bit description and IANA request to draft-ietf-lisp- 2387 pubsub. 2389 B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-16 2391 o Posted Late-September 2018. 2393 o Re-wrote Security Considerations section. Thanks Albert. 2395 o Added Alvaro text to be more clear about IANA actions. 2397 B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 2399 o Posted mid-September 2018. 2401 o Changes to reflect comments from Colin and Mirja. 2403 B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-14 2405 o Posted September 2018. 2407 o Changes to reflect comments from Genart, RTGarea, and Secdir 2408 reviews. 2410 B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-13 2412 o Posted August 2018. 2414 o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed 2415 Standard. 2417 o Added section "Changes since RFC 6833" so implementators are 2418 informed of any changes since the last RFC publication. 2420 B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-12 2422 o Posted late July 2018. 2424 o Moved RFC6830bis and RFC6834bis to Normative References. 2426 B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-11 2428 o Posted July 2018. 2430 o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status and 2431 ran through IDNITs again. 2433 B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 2435 o Posted after LISP WG at IETF week March. 2437 o Move AD field encoding after S-bit in the ECM packet format 2438 description section. 2440 o Say more about when the new Drop actions should be sent. 2442 B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-09 2444 o Posted March IETF week 2018. 2446 o Fixed editorial comments submitted by document shepherd Luigi 2447 Iannone. 2449 B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-08 2451 o Posted March 2018. 2453 o Added RLOC-probing algorithm. 2455 o Added Solicit-Map Request algorithm. 2457 o Added several mechanisms (from 6830bis) regarding Routing Locator 2458 Reachability. 2460 o Added port 4342 to IANA Considerations section. 2462 B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-07 2464 o Posted December 2017. 2466 o Make it more clear in a couple of places that RLOCs are used to 2467 locate ETRs more so than for Map-Server Map-Request forwarding. 2469 o Make it clear that "encapsualted" for a control message is an ECM 2470 based message. 2472 o Make it more clear what messages use source-port 4342 and which 2473 ones use destinatino-port 4342. 2475 o Don't make DDT references when the mapping transport system can be 2476 of any type and the referneced text is general to it. 2478 o Generalize text when referring to the format of an EID-prefix. 2479 Can use othe AFIs then IPv4 and IPv6. 2481 o Many editorial changes to clarify text. 2483 o Changed some "must", "should", and "may" to capitalized. 2485 o Added definitions for Map-Request and Map-Reply messages. 2487 o Ran document through IDNITs. 2489 B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-06 2491 o Posted October 2017. 2493 o Spec the I-bit to include the xTR-ID in a Map-Request message to 2494 be consistent with the Map-Register message and to anticipate the 2495 introduction of pubsub functionality to allow Map-Requests to 2496 subscribe to RLOC-set changes. 2498 o Updated references for individual submissions that became working 2499 group documents. 2501 o Updated references for working group documents that became RFCs. 2503 B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 2505 o Posted May 2017. 2507 o Update IANA Considerations section based on new requests from this 2508 document and changes from what was requested in [RFC6830]. 2510 B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-04 2512 o Posted May 2017. 2514 o Clarify how the Key-ID field is used in Map-Register and Map- 2515 Notify messages. Break the 16-bit field into a 8-bit Key-ID field 2516 and a 8-bit Algorithm-ID field. 2518 o Move the Control-Plane codepoints from the IANA Considerations 2519 section of RFC6830bis to the IANA Considerations section of this 2520 document. 2522 o In the "LISP Control Packet Type Allocations" section, indicate 2523 how message Types are IANA allocated and how experimental RFC8113 2524 sub-types should be requested. 2526 B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-03 2528 o Posted April 2017. 2530 o Add types 9-14 and specify they are not assigned. 2532 o Add the "LISP Shared Extension Message" type and point to RFC8113. 2534 B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-02 2536 o Posted April 2017. 2538 o Clarify that the LISP Control-Plane document defines how the LISP 2539 Data-Plane uses Map-Requests with either the SMR-bit set or the 2540 P-bit set supporting mapping updates and RLOC-probing. Indicating 2541 that other Data-Planes can use the same mechanisms or their own 2542 defined mechanisms to achieve the same functionality. 2544 B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-01 2546 o Posted March 2017. 2548 o Include references to new RFCs published. 2550 o Remove references to self. 2552 o Change references from RFC6830 to RFC6830bis. 2554 o Add two new action/reasons to a Map-Reply has posted to the LISP 2555 WG mailing list. 2557 o In intro section, add refernece to I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction. 2559 o Removed Open Issues section and references to "experimental". 2561 B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 2563 o Posted December 2016. 2565 o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp 2566 -rfc6833-00 individual submission. No other changes made. 2568 B.28. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6833bis-00 2570 o Posted November 2016. 2572 o This is the initial draft to turn RFC 6833 into RFC 6833bis. 2574 o The document name has changed from the "Locator/ID Separation 2575 Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface" to the "Locator/ID 2576 Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane". 2578 o The fundamental change was to move the Control-Plane messages from 2579 RFC 6830 to this document in an effort so any IETF developed or 2580 industry created Data-Plane could use the LISP mapping system and 2581 Control-Plane. 2583 o Update Control-Plane messages to incorporate what has been 2584 implemented in products during the early phase of LISP development 2585 but wasn't able to make it into RFC6830 and RFC6833 to make the 2586 Experimental RFC deadline. 2588 o Indicate there may be nodes in the mapping system that are not MRs 2589 or MSs, that is a ALT-node or a DDT-node. 2591 o Include LISP-DDT in Map-Resolver section and explain how they 2592 maintain a referral-cache. 2594 o Removed open issue about additional state in Map-Servers. With 2595 [RFC8111], Map-Servers have the same registration state and can 2596 give Map-Resolvers complete information in ms-ack Map-Referral 2597 messages. 2599 o Make reference to the LISP Threats Analysis RFC [RFC7835]. 2601 Authors' Addresses 2603 Dino Farinacci 2604 lispers.net 2606 EMail: farinacci@gmail.com 2608 Fabio Maino 2609 Cisco Systems 2611 EMail: fmaino@cisco.com 2613 Vince Fuller 2614 vaf.net Internet Consulting 2616 EMail: vaf@vaf.net 2618 Albert Cabellos 2619 UPC/BarcelonaTech 2620 Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3 2621 Barcelona, Catalunya 2622 Spain 2624 EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu