idnits 2.17.1 draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-03.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 (April 25, 2017) is 2550 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-lamparter-isis-p2mp-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-03 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?)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 'ISO10589' == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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: October 27, 2017 Cisco Systems 6 April 25, 2017 8 Carrying Geo Coordinates Information In IS-IS 9 draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-03 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 October 27, 2017. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2017 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-03.txt . . . . 6 61 8.2. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-02.txt . . . . 6 62 8.3. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-01.txt . . . . 7 63 8.4. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-00.txt . . . . 7 64 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 1. Introduction 71 The IS-IS routing protocol defined by [ISO10589] has been widely 72 deployed in various networks. The Geo Coordinates information can be 73 useful, particularly within the wide area networks for numerous 74 applications. Similar to the Dynamic Hostname defined in [RFC5301], 75 the Geo Coordinates can also be used for network management purposes. 77 In the case of BGP speakers setting the outbound "MED" value in route 78 advertisement to neighbors, a local policy can be defined to evaluate 79 the physical location or physical region of the BGP nexthops. 81 In the case of IGP point-to-multiple operations 82 [I-D.lamparter-isis-p2mp], [RFC6845], the local system configuration 83 can be greatly simplified if the outbound metric to remote neighbors 84 can be generated automatically based on this Geo Location of the IGP 85 neighbors. 87 In the application where IS-IS neighbors are on the same "sub-net" 88 but over the WAN network, this Geo Location information may be used 89 for equal-cost or unequal-cost load sharing on the local system. 90 This enables location based operation on anycast IP prefixes and DMZ 91 gateways across the WAN environment. 93 For the traffic matrix using the Geo Coordinates within the routing 94 domain, instead of a collection of IP nexthops which might be 95 translated into locations, this enables automatic region to region 96 traffic pattern aggregation. 98 This document describes the IS-IS protocol carrying the Geo 99 Coordinates information in a new TLV. This TLV can be distributed 100 within the node's LSP or inside the IIH PDU. The exact mechanism 101 each application uses this information is outside the scope of this 102 document. 104 1.1. Requirements Language 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 108 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 110 2. Packet Encoding 112 This Geo Coordinates extension introduces one TLV for IS-IS LSP PDU 113 and for Hello (IIH) PDU. The code of the TLV is described in the 114 IANA Considerations section of the document. The fields specify the 115 location of the system using WGS-84 (World Geodetic System) reference 116 coordinate system [WGS84]. The value of the Geo Coordinates TLV 117 consists of the following fields: 119 0 1 2 3 120 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 1 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | Altitude | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 | Radius | Reserved | 131 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 | .. Optional Sub-TLVs 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-.... 135 Type: TBD. 8 bits value, to be assigned by IANA. 137 Length: Variable. 8 bits value. The mandatory part is 16 octets. 139 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 140 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 141 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 143 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 144 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it 145 indicates the Latitude is south of the Equator. 147 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 148 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 149 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 151 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 152 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the 153 "Altitude" field is unspecified. 155 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is 156 specified in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates 157 the "Altitude" is in centimeters. 159 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 160 specified and the encoding is for a circular area. If the 161 R-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is 162 unspecified and the encoding is for a single point. 164 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 165 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the 166 "Radius" is in meters. 168 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 169 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 170 protocol packets. 172 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 173 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 175 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 176 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 177 hemisphere, respectively). 179 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 182 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 183 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 185 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 186 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 188 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 189 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height 190 indicates that the location is below sea level. 192 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 193 centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 194 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 195 specification in kilometers. If the radius is specified, 196 the geo-coordinates specify the entire area of the circle 197 defined by the radius and center point. While the use cases 198 herein do not make use of this field, future use cases may. 200 Optional Sub-TLV: Not defined in this document, for future extension 201 related to the Geo Coordinates information. 203 3. Operations 205 This IS-IS Geo Coordinates TLV can be optionally included in the 206 node's LSP, and it is recommended to be in the LSP fragment zero. 207 This TLV can also be optionally included in the IIH PDU. This can be 208 useful when the application is setting the outbound p2mp circuit 209 metric based on the neighbor's location. This can also be used in 210 the Spine-Leaf extension [I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext] where there 211 is no LSP being flooded into the leaf nodes. 213 The Geo location information can be statically provisioned on the 214 system, or it can be dynamically acquired from the GPS capable device 215 on the system. 217 4. IANA Considerations 219 A new TLV codepoint is defined in this document and needs to be 220 assigned by IANA from the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. It is 221 referred to as the Geo Coordinates TLV. This TLV is only to be 222 optionally inserted in the LSP PDU and the IIH PDU. This document 223 does not propose any sub-TLV out of this Geo Coordinates TLV. 225 Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge 226 ----- --------------------- --- --- --- ----- 227 TBD Geo Coordinates y y n n 229 5. Security Considerations 231 Since the Geo Location coordinates provide the exact location of the 232 routing devices, disclosure may make the IS-IS devices more 233 susceptible to physical attacks. In situations where this is a 234 concern (e.g., in military applications, or the topology of the 235 network is considered proprietary information), the implementation 236 MUST allow the Geo Location extension to be removed from the IS-IS 237 advertisement. 239 Security concerns for the base IS-IS are addressed in [ISO10589], 240 [RFC5304], [RFC5310], and [RFC7602]. 242 6. Privacy Considerations 244 If the location of an IS-IS router advertising geo location 245 coordinates as described herein can be directly correlated to an 246 individual, individuals, or an organization, the location of that 247 router should be considered sensitive and IS-IS LSP containing such 248 geo coordinates should be advertised confidentially as described in 249 Section 5. Additionally, IS-IS network management facilities may 250 require added authorization to view the contents of IS-IS LSPs 251 containing geo-Location TLVs. Refer to [RFC6973] for more 252 information. 254 The Uncertainty and Confidence metrics for geo-location information 255 as described in [RFC7459] are not included in the Geo Coordinates 256 TLV. In a future document, these may be considered for inclusion 257 with additional Geo Location Sub-TLVs dependent on both on 258 requirements and adoption of [RFC7459]. 260 7. Acknowledgments 262 The encoding of the Geo location is adapted from the "Geo Coordinate 263 LISP Canonical Address Format" specified in the "LISP Canonical 264 Address Format (LCAF)". We would like to thank the authors of that 265 Document and particularly Dino Farinacci for subsequent discussions. 267 Thanks to Les Ginsberg, Yi Yang, and Joe Hildebrand for commenting 268 and discussions of Geo Coordinates precision encoding. Thanks to 269 David Ward for commenting on attack vector in relation to this new 270 capability of IS-IS. 272 8. Document Change Log 274 8.1. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-03.txt 276 o The 03 version submitted in April 2017 without content change. 278 8.2. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-02.txt 280 o The 02 version submitted in October 2016. 282 o Changed the format of Geo Location encoding to have Radius field 283 and flags to be compatible with LISP [LISP-GEO]. 285 o Added the privacy section. 287 8.3. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-01.txt 289 o The 01 version submitted in February 2016. 291 o Change Geo Location encoding to have better precision and to 292 include uncertainty information. 294 o Added the discussion in security section for the awareness of 295 increased probability in attack vector. 297 8.4. Changes to draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-00.txt 299 o Initial version of the draft is published in February 2016. 301 9. References 303 9.1. Normative References 305 [I-D.lamparter-isis-p2mp] 306 Franke, C., Lamparter, D., and C. Hopps, "IS-IS Point-to- 307 Multipoint operation", draft-lamparter-isis-p2mp-01 (work 308 in progress), October 2015. 310 [I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext] 311 Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS 312 Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology", draft-shen-isis-spine- 313 leaf-ext-03 (work in progress), March 2017. 315 [ISO10589] 316 ISO "International Organization for Standardization", 317 "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain 318 routeing information exchange protocol for use in 319 conjunction with the protocol for providing the 320 connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 321 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 323 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 324 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 325 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 326 . 328 [RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange 329 Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301, 330 October 2008, . 332 [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic 333 Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 334 2008, . 336 [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., 337 and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic 338 Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 339 2009, . 341 [RFC6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast 342 and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845, 343 DOI 10.17487/RFC6845, January 2013, 344 . 346 [RFC7602] Chunduri, U., Lu, W., Tian, A., and N. Shen, "IS-IS 347 Extended Sequence Number TLV", RFC 7602, 348 DOI 10.17487/RFC7602, July 2015, 349 . 351 9.2. Informative References 353 [LISP-GEO] 354 Farinacci, D., "LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases", draft- 355 farinacci-lisp-geo-02 (work in progress), 2016. 357 [RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., 358 Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy 359 Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, 360 DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, 361 . 363 [RFC7459] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Representation of 364 Uncertainty and Confidence in the Presence Information 365 Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 7459, 366 DOI 10.17487/RFC7459, February 2015, 367 . 369 [WGS84] National Imagery and Mapping Agency, "Department of 370 Defense World Geodetic System 1984, Third Edition", 371 NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000. 373 Authors' Addresses 375 Naiming Shen (editor) 376 Cisco Systems 377 560 McCarthy Blvd. 378 Milpitas, CA 95035 379 US 381 Email: naiming@cisco.com 382 Enke Chen 383 Cisco Systems 384 560 McCarthy Blvd. 385 Milpitas, CA 95035 386 US 388 Email: enkechen@cisco.com 390 Acee Linden 391 Cisco Systems 392 301 Midenhall Way 393 Cary, NC 27513 394 US 396 Email: acee@cisco.com