idnits 2.17.1 draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-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 date (October 28, 2016) is 2737 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-lamparter-isis-p2mp-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-00 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589' == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group N. Shen, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft E. Chen 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Lindem 5 Expires: May 1, 2017 Cisco Systems 6 October 28, 2016 8 Carrying Geo Coordinates Information In IS-IS 9 draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-02 11 Abstract 13 This document defines a new IS-IS TLV which carries the Geo 14 Coordinates information of the system. The Geo Coordinates 15 information can be used by IS-IS routing or by any applications. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1, 2017. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. Packet Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 8. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 8.1. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-02.txt . . . . 6 61 8.2. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-01.txt . . . . 6 62 8.3. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-00.txt . . . . 7 63 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 1. Introduction 70 The IS-IS routing protocol defined by [ISO10589] has been widely 71 deployed in various networks. The Geo Coordinates information can be 72 useful, particularly within the wide area networks for numerous 73 applications. Similar to the Dynamic Hostname defined in [RFC5301], 74 the Geo Coordinates can also be used for network management purposes. 76 In the case of BGP speakers setting the outbound "MED" value in route 77 advertisement to neighbors, a local policy can be defined to evaluate 78 the physical location or physical region of the BGP nexthops. 80 In the case of IGP point-to-multiple operations 81 [I-D.lamparter-isis-p2mp], [RFC6845], the local system configuration 82 can be greatly simplified if the outbound metric to remote neighbors 83 can be generated automatically based on this Geo Location of the IGP 84 neighbors. 86 In the application where IS-IS neighbors are on the same "sub-net" 87 but over the WAN network, this Geo Location information may be used 88 for equal-cost or unequal-cost load sharing on the local system. 89 This enables location based operation on anycast IP prefixes and DMZ 90 gateways across the WAN environment. 92 For the traffic matrix using the Geo Coordinates within the routing 93 domain, instead of a collection of IP nexthops which might be 94 translated into locations, this enables automatic region to region 95 traffic pattern aggregation. 97 This document describes the IS-IS protocol carrying the Geo 98 Coordinates information in a new TLV. This TLV can be distributed 99 within the node's LSP or inside the IIH PDU. The exact mechanism 100 each application uses this information is outside the scope of this 101 document. 103 1.1. Requirements Language 105 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 106 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 107 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 109 2. Packet Encoding 111 This Geo Coordinates extension introduces one TLV for IS-IS LSP PDU 112 and for Hello (IIH) PDU. The code of the TLV is described in the 113 IANA Considerations section of the document. The fields specify the 114 location of the system using WGS-84 (World Geodetic System) reference 115 coordinate system [WGS84]. The value of the Geo Coordinates TLV 116 consists of the following fields: 118 0 1 2 3 119 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 1 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 124 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 125 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 126 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 | Altitude | 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 | Radius | Reserved | 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 | .. Optional Sub-TLVs 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-.... 134 Type: TBD. 8 bits value, to be assigned by IANA. 136 Length: Variable. 8 bits value. The mandatory part is 16 octets. 138 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 139 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 140 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 142 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 143 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it 144 indicates the Latitude is south of the Equator. 146 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 147 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 148 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 150 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 151 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the 152 "Altitude" field is unspecified. 154 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is 155 specified in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates 156 the "Altitude" is in centimeters. 158 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 159 specified and the encoding is for a circular area. If the 160 R-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is 161 unspecified and the encoding is for a single point. 163 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 164 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the 165 "Radius" is in meters. 167 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 168 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 169 protocol packets. 171 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 172 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 174 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 175 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 176 hemisphere, respectively). 178 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 179 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 181 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 182 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 184 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 185 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 187 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 188 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height 189 indicates that the location is below sea level. 191 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 192 centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 193 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 194 specification in kilometers. If the radius is specified, 195 the geo-coordinates specify the entire area of the circle 196 defined by the radius and center point. While the use cases 197 herein do not make use of this field, future use cases may. 199 Optional Sub-TLV: Not defined in this document, for future extension 200 related to the Geo Coordinates information. 202 3. Operations 204 This IS-IS Geo Coordinates TLV can be optionally included in the 205 node's LSP, and it is recommended to be in the LSP fragment zero. 206 This TLV can also be optionally included in the IIH PDU. This can be 207 useful when the application is setting the outbound p2mp circuit 208 metric based on the neighbor's location. This can also be used in 209 the Spine-Leaf extension [I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext] where there 210 is no LSP being flooded into the leaf nodes. 212 The Geo location information can be statically provisioned on the 213 system, or it can be dynamically acquired from the GPS capable device 214 on the system. 216 4. IANA Considerations 218 A new TLV codepoint is defined in this document and needs to be 219 assigned by IANA from the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. It is 220 referred to as the Geo Coordinates TLV. This TLV is only to be 221 optionally inserted in the LSP PDU and the IIH PDU. This document 222 does not propose any sub-TLV out of this Geo Coordinates TLV. 224 Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge 225 ----- --------------------- --- --- --- ----- 226 TBD Geo Coordinates y y n n 228 5. Security Considerations 230 Since the Geo Location coordinates provide the exact location of the 231 routing devices, disclosure may make the IS-IS devices more 232 susceptible to physical attacks. In situations where this is a 233 concern (e.g., in military applications, or the topology of the 234 network is considered proprietary information), the implementation 235 MUST allow the Geo Location extension to be removed from the IS-IS 236 advertisement. 238 Security concerns for the base IS-IS are addressed in [ISO10589], 239 [RFC5304], [RFC5310], and [RFC7602]. 241 6. Privacy Considerations 243 If the location of an IS-IS router advertising geo location 244 coordinates as described herein can be directly correlated to an 245 individual, individuals, or an organization, the location of that 246 router should be considered sensitive and IS-IS LSP containing such 247 geo coordinates should be advertised confidentially as described in 248 Section 5. Additionally, IS-IS network management facilities may 249 require added authorization to view the contents of IS-IS LSPs 250 containing geo-Location TLVs. Refer to [RFC6973] for more 251 information. 253 The Uncertainty and Confidence metrics for geo-location information 254 as described in [RFC7459] are not included in the Geo Coordinates 255 TLV. In a future document, these may be considered for inclusion 256 with additional Geo Location Sub-TLVs dependent on both on 257 requirements and adoption of [RFC7459]. 259 7. Acknowledgments 261 The encoding of the Geo location is adapted from the "Geo Coordinate 262 LISP Canonical Address Format" specified in the "LISP Canonical 263 Address Format (LCAF)". We would like to thank the authors of that 264 Document and particularly Dino Farinacci for subsequent discussions. 266 Thanks to Les Ginsberg, Yi Yang, and Joe Hildebrand for commenting 267 and discussions of Geo Coordinates precision encoding. Thanks to 268 David Ward for commenting on attack vector in relation to this new 269 capability of IS-IS. 271 8. Document Change Log 273 8.1. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-02.txt 275 o The 02 version submitted in October 2016. 277 o Changed the format of Geo Location encoding to have Radius field 278 and flags to be compatible with LISP [LISP-GEO]. 280 o Added the privacy section. 282 8.2. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-01.txt 284 o The 01 version submitted in February 2016. 286 o Change Geo Location encoding to have better precision and to 287 include uncertainty information. 289 o Added the discussion in security section for the awareness of 290 increased probability in attack vector. 292 8.3. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-00.txt 294 o Initial version of the draft is published in February 2016. 296 9. References 298 9.1. Normative References 300 [I-D.lamparter-isis-p2mp] 301 Franke, C., Lamparter, D., and C. Hopps, "IS-IS Point-to- 302 Multipoint operation", draft-lamparter-isis-p2mp-01 (work 303 in progress), October 2015. 305 [I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext] 306 Shen, N. and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS Routing for Spine- 307 Leaf Topology", draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-00 (work in 308 progress), November 2015. 310 [ISO10589] 311 ISO "International Organization for Standardization", 312 "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain 313 routeing information exchange protocol for use in 314 conjunction with the protocol for providing the 315 connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 316 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 318 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 319 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 320 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 321 . 323 [RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange 324 Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301, 325 October 2008, . 327 [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic 328 Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 329 2008, . 331 [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., 332 and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic 333 Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 334 2009, . 336 [RFC6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast 337 and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845, 338 DOI 10.17487/RFC6845, January 2013, 339 . 341 [RFC7602] Chunduri, U., Lu, W., Tian, A., and N. Shen, "IS-IS 342 Extended Sequence Number TLV", RFC 7602, 343 DOI 10.17487/RFC7602, July 2015, 344 . 346 9.2. Informative References 348 [LISP-GEO] 349 Farinacci, D., "LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases", draft- 350 farinacci-lisp-geo-02 (work in progress), 2016. 352 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 353 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 354 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 355 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 356 . 358 [RFC7459] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Representation of 359 Uncertainty and Confidence in the Presence Information 360 Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 7459, 361 DOI 10.17487/RFC7459, February 2015, 362 . 364 [WGS84] National Imagery and Mapping Agency, "Department of 365 Defense World Geodetic System 1984, Third Edition", 366 NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000. 368 Authors' Addresses 370 Naiming Shen (editor) 371 Cisco Systems 372 560 McCarthy Blvd. 373 Milpitas, CA 95035 374 US 376 Email: naiming@cisco.com 377 Enke Chen 378 Cisco Systems 379 560 McCarthy Blvd. 380 Milpitas, CA 95035 381 US 383 Email: enkechen@cisco.com 385 Acee Linden 386 Cisco Systems 387 301 Midenhall Way 388 Cary, NC 27513 389 US 391 Email: acee@cisco.com