Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-04

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 9306.
Authors Alberto Rodriguez-Natal , Vina Ermagan , Anton Smirnov , Vrushali Ashtaputre , Dino Farinacci
Last updated 2019-04-04 (Latest revision 2018-10-08)
Replaces draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-vendor-lcaf
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
txt htmlized pdf bibtex bibxml
Reviews
SECDIR Last Call review (of -10) by Tero Kivinen Has nits
RTGDIR Last Call review (of -10) by Dhruv Dhody Has issues
GENART Last Call review (of -09) by Christer Holmberg Ready w/issues
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Document shepherd Luigi Iannone
IESG IESG state Became RFC 9306 (Experimental)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
Email authors Email WG IPR References Referenced by Nits Search email archive
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-04 
LISP Working Group                                    A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental                                 V. Ermagan
Expires: October 6, 2019                                          Google
                                                              A. Smirnov
                                                           V. Ashtaputre
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            D. Farinacci
                                                             lispers.net
                                                           April 4, 2019

          Vendor Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
                     draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-04

Abstract

   This document describes a new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF),
   the Vendor Specific LCAF.  This LCAF enables organizations to have
   internal encodings for LCAF addresses.

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 October 6, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 October 6, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                  April 2019

   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 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Vendor Specific LCAF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
   and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments.
   However, certain deployments require specific format encodings that
   may not be applicable outside of the use-case for which they are
   defined.  The Vendor Specific LCAF allows organizations to create
   LCAF addresses to be used only internally on particular LISP
   deployments.

2.  Requirements Notation

   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.  Vendor Specific LCAF

   The Vendor Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
   Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802_2001] to prevent collisions across
   vendors or organizations using the LCAF.  The format of the Vendor
   Specific LCAF is provided below.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires October 6, 2019                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                  April 2019

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Type = 255  |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      Rsvd3    |    Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Internal format...                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Vendor Specific LCAF

   The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor Specific LCAF
   are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
   in [RFC8060].  The "Type" field MUST be set to the value 255 to
   indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF.  The fields defined by
   the Vendor Specific LCAF are:

      Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be
      set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

      Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
      that carries the IEEE OUI [IEEE.802_2001] of the organization.

      Internal format: This is a variable length field that is left
      undefined on purpose.  Each vendor or organization can define its
      own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific LCAF.

   The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where
   different organizations interoperate.  However, there may be cases
   where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which
   they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor
   Specific LCAF.  In that case, the organizations involved need to
   carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular
   deployment.

   If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific
   LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
   message.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
   internal use.  It is the responsibility of these organizations to
   properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires October 6, 2019                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                  April 2019

5.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern and Luigi Iannone for
   their suggestions and guidance regarding this document.

6.  IANA Considerations

   Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], this document requests IANA to
   update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry
   defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment:

              +---------+---------------------+------------+
              | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference  |
              +---------+---------------------+------------+
              |   255   |   Vendor Specific   | Section 3  |
              +---------+---------------------+------------+

                 Table 1: Vendor Specific LCAF assignment

7.  Normative 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-26 (work in progress),
              November 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February
              2019.

   [IEEE.802_2001]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001,
              DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
              February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires October 6, 2019                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              LISP-Vendor-LCAF                  April 2019

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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

   Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: natal@cisco.com

   Vina Ermagan
   Google
   USA

   Email: ermagan@gmail.com

   Anton Smirnov
   Cisco Systems
   Diegem
   Belgium

   Email: asmirnov@cisco.com

   Vrushali Ashtaputre
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: vrushali@cisco.com

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: farinacci@gmail.com

Rodriguez-Natal, et al.  Expires October 6, 2019                [Page 5]