Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG)
Last updated 2020-07-10
Replaces draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-pubsub
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
LISP Working Group                                    A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Experimental                                 V. Ermagan
Expires: January 11, 2021                                         Google
                                                             A. Cabellos
                                                       UPC/BarcelonaTech
                                                               S. Barkai
                                                                   Nexar
                                                            M. Boucadair
                                                                  Orange
                                                           July 10, 2020

                Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
                       draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-06

Abstract

   This document specifies an extension to the use of Map-Request to
   enable Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation for LISP.

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 https://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 January 11, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://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

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   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
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Deployment Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Map-Request PubSub Additions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Mapping Notification Publish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Security Association between ITR and MS . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  DDoS Attack Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
   splits current IP addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint
   Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs).  LISP uses a map-
   and-encap approach that relies on (1) a Mapping System (basically a
   distributed database) that stores and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings
   and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) that encapsulate and
   decapsulate data packets based on the content of those mappings.

   Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) / Re-encapsulating Tunnel Routers
   (RTRs) / Proxy Ingress Tunnel Routers (PITRs) pull EID-to-RLOC
   mapping information from the Mapping System by means of an explicit
   request message.  Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] indicates
   how Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) can tell ITRs/RTRs/PITRs about
   mapping changes.  This document presents a Publish/Subscribe (PubSub)
   extension in which the Mapping System can notify ITRs/RTRs/PITRs
   about mapping changes.  When this mechanism is used, mapping changes
   can be notified faster and can be managed in the Mapping System
   versus the LISP sites.

   In general, when an ITR/RTR/PITR wants to be notified for mapping
   changes for a given EID-prefix, the following steps occur:

   (1)  The ITR/RTR/PITR sends a Map-Request for that EID-prefix.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   (2)  The ITR/RTR/PITR sets the Notification-Requested bit (N-bit) on
        the Map-Request and includes its xTR-ID and Site-ID.

   (3)  The Map-Request is forwarded to one of the Map-Servers that the
        EID-prefix is registered to.

   (4)  The Map-Server creates subscription state for the ITR/RTR/PITR
        on the EID-prefix.

   (5)  The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify to the ITR/RTR/PITR to
        acknowledge the successful subscription.

   (6)  When there is an RLOC-set change for the EID-prefix, the Map-
        Server sends a Map-Notify message to each ITR/RTR/PITR in the
        subscription list.

   (7)  Each ITR/RTR/PITR sends a Map-Notify-Ack to acknowledge the
        received Map-Notify.

   This operation is repeated for all EID-prefixes for which ITR/RTR/
   PITR want to be notified.  The ITR/RTR/PITR can set the N-bit for
   several EID-prefixes within a single Map-Request.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Deployment Assumptions

   The specification described in this document makes the following
   deployment assumptions:

   (1)  A unique 128-bit xTR-ID (plus a 64-bit Site-ID) identifier is
        assigned to each xTR.

   (2)  Map-Servers are configured in proxy-reply mode, i.e., they are
        solicited to generate and send Map-Reply messages for the
        mappings they are serving.

   The distribution of xTR-IDs (and Site-IDs) are out of the scope of
   this document.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

4.  Map-Request PubSub Additions

   Figure 1 shows the format of the updated Map-Request to support the
   PubSub functionality.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|R|I|  Rsvd   |L|D|   IRC   | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         Source-EID-AFI        |   Source EID Address  ...     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         ITR-RLOC-AFI 1        |    ITR-RLOC Address 1  ...    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                              ...                              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         ITR-RLOC-AFI n        |    ITR-RLOC Address n  ...    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |N|   Reserved  | EID mask-len  |        EID-Prefix-AFI         |
   Rec +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                       EID-Prefix  ...                         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   Map-Reply Record  ...                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +                            xTR-ID                             +
       |                                                               |
       +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       +                           Site-ID                             +
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Figure 1: Map-Request with I-bit, N-bit, xTR-ID, and Site-ID

   The following is added to the Map-Request message defined in
   Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]:

      xTR-ID bit (I-bit): The I-bit of a Map-Request message is set to 1
      to indicate that a 128 bit xTR-ID and a 64 bit Site-ID fields are

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

      present at the end of the Map-Request message.  If an xTR is
      configured with an xTR-ID or Site-ID, it MUST set the I-bit to 1
      and include its xTR-ID and Site-ID in the Map-Request messages it
      generates.  If either the xTR-ID or Site-ID is not configured, an
      unspecified value is encoded for whichever ID that is not
      configured.

      Notification-Requested bit (N-bit): The N-bit of an EID-record is
      set to 1 to specify that the xTR wants to be notified of updates
      for that mapping record.

      xTR-ID field: xTR-ID is a 128 bit field at the end of the Map-
      Request message, starting after the final Record in the message
      (or the Map-Reply Record, if present).  The xTR-ID is used to
      uniquely identify the sender of a Map-Request message.  The xTR-ID
      is defined in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]

      Site-ID field: Site-ID is a 64 bit field at the end of the Map-
      Request message, following the xTR-ID.  Site-ID is used by the
      Map-Server receiving the Map-Request message to identify which
      xTRs belong to the same site.  The Site-ID is defined in
      Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]

5.  Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures

   The xTR subscribes for RLOC-set changes for a given EID-prefix by
   sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the
   EID-Record.  The xTR builds a Map-Request according to Section 5.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] but also does the following:

   (1)  The xTR MUST set the I-bit to 1 and append its xTR-ID and Site-
        ID to the Map-Request.  The xTR-ID uniquely identifies the xTR.

   (2)  The xTR MUST set the N-bit to 1 for each EID-Record to which the
        xTR wants to subscribe.

   The Map-Request is forwarded to the appropriate Map-Server through
   the Mapping System.  This document does not assume that a Map-Server
   is pre-assigned to handle the subscription state for a given xTR.
   The Map-Server that receives the Map-Request will be the Map-Server
   responsible to notify that specific xTR about future mapping changes
   for the subscribed mapping records.

   Upon receipt of the Map-Request, the Map-Server processes it as
   described in Section 8.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  Furthermore,
   upon processing, for each EID-Record that has the N-bit set to 1, the
   Map-Server proceeds adding the xTR-ID contained in the Map-Request to

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   the list of xTR that have requested to be subscribed to that mapping
   record.

   If the xTR-ID is added to the list, the Map-Server MUST send a Map-
   Notify message back to the xTR to acknowledge the successful
   subscription.  The Map-Server MUST follow the specification in
   Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify
   with the following considerations:

   (1)  The Map-Server MUST use the nonce from the Map-Request as the
        nonce for the Map-Notify.

   (2)  The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR
        (see Section 3) to compute the authentication data of the Map-
        Notify.

   (3)  The Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to one of the ITR-RLOCs
        received in the Map-Request.

   When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce that matches one in
   the list of outstanding Map-Request messages sent with an N-bit set,
   it knows that the Map-Notify is to acknowledge a successful
   subscription.  The xTR processes this Map-Notify as described in
   Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following
   considerations.  The xTR MUST use its security association with the
   Map-Server (see Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on
   the Map-Notify.  The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map-
   cache with the returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set.

   The subscription of an xTR-ID to the list of subscribers for the EID-
   Record may fail for a number of reasons.  For example, because of
   local configuration policies (such as accept and drop lists of
   subscribers), or because the Map-Server has exhausted the resources
   to dedicate to the subscription of that EID-Record (e.g., the number
   of subscribers excess the capacity of the Map-Server).

   If the subscription fails, the Map-Server MUST send a Map-Reply to
   the originator of the Map-Request, as described in Section 8.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The xTR processes the Map-Reply as
   specified in Section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   If an xTR-ID is successfully added to the list of subscribers for an
   EID-Record, the Map-Server MUST extract the nonce and ITR-RLOCs
   present in the Map-Request, and store the association between the
   EID-Record, xTR-ID, ITR-RLOCs and nonce.  Any already present state
   regarding ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be
   overwritten.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   If the Map-Request only has one ITR-RLOC with AFI = 0 (i.e., Unknown
   Address), the Map-Server MUST remove the subscription state for that
   xTR-ID.  In this case, the Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to the
   source RLOC of the Map-Request.  When the TTL for the EID-record
   expires, the EID-prefix is removed from the Map-Server's subscription
   cache.  On EID-Record removal, the Map-Server notifies the
   subscribers via a Map-Notify with TTL equal 0.

6.  Mapping Notification Publish Procedures

   The publish procedure is implemented via Map-Notify messages that the
   Map-Server sends to xTRs.  The xTRs acknowledge the reception of Map-
   Notifies via sending Map-Notify-Ack messages back to the Map-Server.
   The complete mechanism works as follows.

   When a mapping stored in a Map-Server is updated (e.g., via a Map-
   Register from an ETR), the Map-Server MUST notify the subscribers of
   that mapping via sending Map-Notify messages with the most updated
   mapping information.  The Map-Notify message sent to each of the
   subscribers as a result of an update event MUST follow the exact
   encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following:

   (1)  The Map-Notify MUST be sent to one of the ITR-RLOCs associated
        with the xTR-ID of the subscriber.

   (2)  The Map-Server increments the nonce every time it sends a Map-
        Notify as publication to an xTR-ID for a particular EID-Record.
        The starting nonce is set as follows, if the subscription state
        at the Map-Server was created by a received Map-Request with the
        N-bit set, the starting nonce in the Map-Notify sent as
        publication MUST be the one used in the Map-Request that created
        the subscription state.  If the subscription state was created
        by explicit configuration at the Map-Server, the starting nonce
        in the Map-Notify sent as publication MUST be randomly generated
        by the Map-Server.

   (3)  The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR to
        compute the authentication data of the Map-Notify.

   When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID not local to the xTR,
   the xTR knows that the Map-Notify has been received to update an
   entry on its map-cache.  Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify
   messages MUST be explicitly enabled via configuration at the xTR.
   The xTR keeps track of the last nonce seen in a Map-Notify received
   as a publication from the Map-Server for the EID-Record.  If a Map-
   Notify received as a publication has a nonce value that is not
   greater than the saved nonce, the xTR drops the Map-Notify message

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   and logs the fact a replay attack could have occurred.  The same
   considerations discussed in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
   regarding storing Map-Register nonces apply here for Map-Notify
   nonces.

   The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in Section 5.7
   of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations.
   The xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see
   Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify.
   The xTR MUST use the mapping information carried in the Map-Notify to
   update its internal map-cache.  The xTR MUST acknowledge the Map-
   Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack (specified in Section 5.7 of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]), with the nonce from the Map-Notify, to
   the Map-Server.  If after a configurable timeout, the Map-Server has
   not received back the Map-Notify-Ack, it can try to send the Map-
   Notify to a different ITR-RLOC for that xTR-ID.

7.  Security Considerations

   Generic security considerations related to LISP control messages are
   discussed in Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   In the particular case of PubSub, cache poisoning via malicious Map-
   Notify messages is avoided by the use of nonce and the security
   association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers.

7.1.  Security Association between ITR and MS

   Since Map-Notifies from the Map-Server to the ITR need to be
   authenticated, there is a need for a soft-state or hard-state
   security association (e.g. a PubSubKey) between the ITRs and the Map-
   Servers.  For some controlled deployments, it might be possible to
   have a shared PubSubKey (or set of keys) between the ITRs and the
   Map-Servers.  However, if pre-shared keys are not used in the
   deployment, LISP-SEC [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] can be used as follows to
   create a security association between the ITR and the MS.

   First, when the ITR is sending a Map-Request with the N-bit set
   following Section 5, the ITR also performs the steps described in
   Section 5.4 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].  The ITR can then generate a
   PubSubKey by deriving a key from the OTK as follows: PubSubKey = KDF(
   OTK ), where KDF is the Key Derivation Function indicated by the OTK
   Wrapping ID.  If OTK Wrapping ID equals NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 then the
   PubSubKey is the OTK.  Note that as opposed to the pre-shared
   PubSubKey, this generated PubSubKey is different per EID-Record the
   ITR subscribes to (since the ITR will use a different OTK per Map-
   Request).

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   When the Map-Server receives the Map-Request it follows Section 5.
   If according to Section 5 the Map-Server is to reply with a Map-Reply
   (e.g. due to PubSub not supported or subscription not accepted), then
   it follows normal LISP-SEC procedure described in Section 5.7 of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec].  No PubSubKey or security association is created
   in this case.

   Otherwise, if, by following Section 5, the Map-Server is to reply
   with a Map-Notify (e.g. due to subscription accepted) to a received
   Map-Request, the following extra steps take place (note that if the
   MS replies with a Map-Notify, none of the regular LISP-SEC steps
   regarding Map-Reply described in Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
   takes place).

   o  The MS extracts the OTK and OTK Wrapping ID from the LISP-SEC ECM
      Authentication Data.

   o  The MS generates a PubSubKey by deriving a key from the OTK as
      described before for the ITR.  This is the same PubSubKey derived
      at the ITR which is used to establish a security association
      between the ITR and the MS.

   o  The PubSubKey can now be used to sign and authenticate any Map-
      Notify between the MS and the ITR for the subscribed EID-Record.
      This includes the Map-Notify sent as a confirmation to the
      subscription.  When the ITR wants to update the security
      association for that MS and EID-Record, it follows again the
      procedure described in this section.

7.2.  DDoS Attack Mitigation

   Misbehaving nodes may send massive subscription requests which may
   lead to exhaust the resources of Map-Servers.  Furthermore,
   frequently changing the state of a subscription may also be
   considered as an attack vector.  To mitigate such issues, xTRs SHOULD
   rate-limit Map-Requests and Map-Servers SHOULD rate-limit Map-
   Notifies.  Rate-limiting Map-Requests is discussed in Section 5.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the same guidelines apply here.  To
   rate-limit Map-Notifies, a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one
   Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID.  This parameter MUST be
   configurable.  Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is
   met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will silently discard
   additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID.  Similarly, for
   pending mapping updates that need to be notified to that xTR-ID, the
   Map-Server will combine them into a single Map-Notify (with multiple
   EID-records) which it will send when the rate-limit mechanism allows
   it to transmit again Map-Notifies to that xTR-ID.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

8.  Contributors

       Dino Farinacci
       lispers.net
       San Jose, CA
       USA

       Email: farinacci@gmail.com

       Johnson Leong

       Email: johnsonleong@gmail.com

       Fabio Maino
       Cisco
       170 Tasman Drive
       San Jose, CA
       USA

       Email: fmaino@cisco.com

       Christian Jacquenet
       Orange
       Rennes  35000
       France

       Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com

       Stefano Secci
       Cnam
       France

       Email: stefano.secci@cnam.fr

9.  Acknowledgments

   This work is partly funded by the ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-
   13-INFR-009 (https://www.lisp-lab.org).

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

10.  IANA Considerations

   This document is requesting bit allocations in the Map-Request
   message from the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits" registry introduced
   in Section 12.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  In particular, this
   document requests allocating the following two bits from the sub-
   registry "Map-Request Header Bits".  The position of these two bits
   in the Map-Request message can be found in Figure 1.

   +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
   | Spec     | IANA Name     | Bit         | Description              |
   | Name     |               | Position    |                          |
   +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
   | I        | map-request-I | 11          | xTR-ID Bit               |
   | N        | map-request-N | ... + 0     | Notification-Requested   |
   |          |               |             | Bit                      |
   +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+

    Table 1: Additions to the LISP Map-Request Header Bits Sub-Registry

11.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos-
              Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-
              Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-27 (work in progress),
              January 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-21
              (work in progress), July 2020.

   [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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Authors' Addresses

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                 LISP-PubSub                     July 2020

   Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
   Cisco
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: natal@cisco.com

   Vina Ermagan
   Google
   USA

   Email: ermagan@gmail.com

   Albert Cabellos
   UPC/BarcelonaTech
   Barcelona
   Spain

   Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu

   Sharon Barkai
   Nexar

   Email: sharon.barkai@getnexar.com

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

Rodriguez-Natal, et al. Expires January 11, 2021               [Page 12]