LISP Generic Protocol Extension
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9305.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Darrel Lewis , John Lemon , Puneet Agarwal , Larry Kreeger , Paul Quinn , Michael Smith , Navindra Yadav, Fabio Maino | ||
| Last updated | 2018-01-24 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART Telechat review
(of
-06)
by Magnus Westerlund
On the Right Track
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9305 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00
Internet Engineering Task Force D. Lewis
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon
Expires: July 28, 2018 Broadcom
P. Agarwal
Innovium
L. Kreeger
P. Quinn
M. Smith
N. Yadav
F. Maino, Ed.
Cisco
January 24, 2018
LISP Generic Protocol Extension
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-00
Abstract
This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP), via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-protocol
encapsulation.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 3
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
LISP, as defined in [RFC6830] and extended in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines an encapsulation format that
carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth referred to as IP) packets in a LISP
header and outer UDP/IP transport.
The LISP header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated and
therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP packet
payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348] (which
defines a similar header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate L2
protocols such as Ethernet.
This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.
A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,
albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.
1.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Definition of Terms
This document uses terms already defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions
As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol
identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because
of this, LISP is limited to carry IP payloads.
The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags
(some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an
instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility
to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is
the last reserved bit in the LISP header.
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LISP Header
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)
This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in
order to support multi-protocol encapsulation:
P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit
MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next
protocol field.
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined
in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit
because this flag bit is currently unallocated.
Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to
carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the
protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce,
an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning [RFC6834]. These are
all optional capabilities that are indicated in the LISP header by
setting the N, E, and the V bit respectively.
When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
middle 16 bits.
When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is
the middle 16 bits.
When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0,
the middle 16-bits are set to 0.
This draft defines the following Next Protocol values:
0x1 : IPv4
0x2 : IPv6
0x3 : Ethernet
0x4 : Network Service Header [I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
0x6: Group-Based Policy (GBP) [I-D.lemon-vxlan-gpe-gbp].
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LISP-GPE Header
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
4. Backward Compatibility
LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.
A LISP-GPE router MUST not encapsulate non-IP packets to a LISP
router. A method for determining the capabilities of a LISP router
(GPE or "legacy") is out of the scope of this draft.
When encapsulating IP packets to a LISP "legacy" router the P bit
MUST be set to 0.
4.1. Type of Service
When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be mapped from
the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in the outer IPv4
header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' field.
4.2. VLAN Identifier (VID)
When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
header 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or
used to determine the LISP Instance ID field.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are
defined in this draft. New values are assigned via Standards Action
[RFC5226].
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This Document |
| 1 | IPv4 | This Document |
| 2 | IPv6 | This Document |
| 3 | Ethernet | This Document |
| 4 | NSH | This Document |
| 5 | Reserved | |
| 6 | GBP | This Document |
| 7 | Reserved | |
| 8..255 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
6. Security Considerations
LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
considerations documented at length in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
With LISP-GPE, issues such as dataplane spoofing, flooding, and
traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
encapsulated.
7. Acknowledgements
A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
detailed review.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6834>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 (work in progress),
January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-sfc-nsh]
Quinn, P., Elzur, U., and C. Pignataro, "Network Service
Header (NSH)", draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-28 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[I-D.lemon-vxlan-gpe-gbp]
Lemon, J., Maino, F., and M. Smith, "Group Policy Encoding
with VXLAN-GPE", draft-lemon-vxlan-gpe-gbp-01 (work in
progress), December 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems
Email: darlewis@cisco.com
John Lemon
Broadcom
3151 Zanker Road
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com
Puneet Agarwal
Innovium
USA
Email: puneet@acm.org
Larry Kreeger
USA
Email: lkreeger@gmail.com
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension January 2018
Paul Quinn
Cisco Systems
Email: pquinn@cisco.com
Michael Smith
Cisco Systems
Email: michsmit@cisco.com
Navindra Yadav
Cisco Systems
Email: nyadav@cisco.com
Fabio Maino (editor)
Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Email: fmaino@cisco.com
Lewis, et al. Expires July 28, 2018 [Page 8]