idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where different organizations interoperate. If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST be taken. -- The document date (July 2, 2018) is 2118 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-38) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal 3 Internet-Draft V. Ermagan 4 Intended status: Experimental A. Smirnov 5 Expires: January 3, 2019 V. Ashtaputre 6 Cisco Systems 7 D. Farinacci 8 lispers.net 9 July 2, 2018 11 Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) 12 draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-02 14 Abstract 16 This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF), 17 the Vendor Specific LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have 18 internal encodings for LCAF addresses. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 1. Introduction 65 The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format 66 and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP 67 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments. 68 However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that 69 may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are 70 defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create 71 LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP 72 deployments. 74 2. Requirements Language 76 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 77 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 78 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] 80 3. Vendor Specific LCAF 82 The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally 83 Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] to prevent collisions across 84 vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor 85 Specific LCAF is provided below. 87 0 1 2 3 88 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 89 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 90 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 91 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 92 | Type = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length | 93 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 94 | Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) | 95 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 96 | Internal format... | 97 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 99 Vendor Specific LCAF 101 The Vendor Specific LCAF has the following fields. 103 Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be 104 set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt. 106 Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field 107 that carries the IEEE OUI [IEEE.802_2001] of the organization. 109 Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left 110 undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its 111 own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF. 113 The definition for the rest of the fields can be found in [RFC8060]. 115 The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where 116 different organizations interoperate. If a LISP device receives a 117 LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it 118 does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST 119 be taken. 121 4. Security Considerations 123 This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their 124 internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to 125 properly assess the security implications of the formats they define. 127 5. Acknowledgments 129 The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern for his suggestions and 130 comments regarding this document. 132 6. IANA Considerations 134 Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], this document requests IANA to 135 update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry 136 defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment: 138 +---------+---------------------+------------+ 139 | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference | 140 +---------+---------------------+------------+ 141 | 255 | Vendor Specific | Section 3 | 142 +---------+---------------------+------------+ 144 Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment 146 7. Normative References 148 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 149 Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. 150 Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol 151 (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 (work in progress), 152 March 2018. 154 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 155 Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, 156 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", 157 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-10 (work in progress), March 158 2018. 160 [IEEE.802_2001] 161 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area 162 Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001, 163 DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002, 164 . 166 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 167 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 168 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 169 . 171 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 172 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 173 February 2017, . 175 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 176 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 177 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 178 . 180 Authors' Addresses 182 Alberto Rodriguez-Natal 183 Cisco Systems 184 170 Tasman Drive 185 San Jose, CA 186 USA 188 Email: natal@cisco.com 190 Vina Ermagan 191 Cisco Systems 192 170 Tasman Drive 193 San Jose, CA 194 USA 196 Email: vermagan@cisco.com 198 Anton Smirnov 199 Cisco Systems 200 170 Tasman Drive 201 San Jose, CA 202 USA 204 Email: asmirnov@cisco.com 206 Vrushali Ashtaputre 207 Cisco Systems 208 170 Tasman Drive 209 San Jose, CA 210 USA 212 Email: vrushali@cisco.com 214 Dino Farinacci 215 lispers.net 216 San Jose, CA 217 USA 219 Email: farinacci@gmail.com