[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-lewis-lisp-gpe) 00 01 02 03 04 05

Internet Engineering Task Force                            F. Maino, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Lemon
Expires: February 16, 2019                                      Broadcom
                                                              P. Agarwal
                                                                Innovium
                                                                D. Lewis
                                                                M. Smith
                                                                   Cisco
                                                         August 15, 2018


                    LISP Generic Protocol Extension
                         draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05

Abstract

   This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation
   Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, 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 February 16, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (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



Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


   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.  Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR
           Capabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry  . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  It
   specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets
   (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer
   UDP/IP transport.

   The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being
   encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only
   IP packet payloads.  Other protocols, most notably Virtual eXtensible
   Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] (which defines a similar header
   format to LISP), are used to encapsulate Layer-2 (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,



Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 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", "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.

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 Section 1, the LISP header has no protocol identifier
   that indicates the type of payload being carried.  Because of this,
   LISP is limited to carrying 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               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                           Figure 1: LISP Header

3.  Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)

   This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to
   support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit
   and the definition of a Next Protocol field.  This is shown in
   Figure 2 and described below.




Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


        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               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                         Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header

   P-Bit:  Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.

      If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to the
      definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].

      The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next
      Protocol field.



   Nonce/Map-Version:  In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower
      24 bits of the first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to
      support map- versioning.  These are all optional capabilities that
      are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits
      respectively.

      When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
      middle 16 bits (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits).  Note that
      the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set.

      When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version fields use
      the middle 16 bits: the Source Map-Version uses the high-order 8
      bits, and the Dest Map-Version uses the low-order 8 bits.

      When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0,
      the middle 16-bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on
      receipt.

      The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the one
      used in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP data plane
      encapsulation, reduces the length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits.
      As per [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs)
      are required to generate different nonces when sending to
      different Routing Locators (RLOCs), but the same nonce can be used
      for a period of time when encapsulating to the same Egress Tunnel
      Router (ETR).  The use of 16 bits nonces still allows an ITR to




Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


      determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at the same
      time.

      Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields,
      compared with [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], is reduced from 12 to 8
      bits.  This still allows to associate 256 different versions to
      each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping
      to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the
      mapping.

   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.

      This document defines the following Next Protocol values:



      0x1 :  IPv4

      0x2 :  IPv6

      0x3 :  Ethernet

      0x4 :  Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]

      The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in
      Section 5.1.

4.  Backward Compatibility

   LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.

   The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane
   capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-
   Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in
   [RFC8060].  Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR
   (xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document.

   When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the
   P-bit MUST be set to 0.  That is, the encapsulation format defined in
   this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated
   that it supports this specification because such a router would
   ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so
   would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing
   significant errors.





Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


   A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets to a non LISP-
   GPE capable router.

4.1.  Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities

   LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple
   Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply
   to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC.  In
   this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-
   GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.

   The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as
   defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to
   represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation.  The values are
   tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 5.2.

   This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the
   "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:

   g-Bit:  The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI)
      encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE
      (Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP
      port 4341

4.2.  Type of Service

   When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
   802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 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

4.3.  VLAN Identifier (VID)

   When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
   header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped
   to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry

   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 document.  New values are assigned via Standards
   Action [RFC8126].  The protocols that are being assigned values do
   not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.




Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


              +---------------+-------------+---------------+
              | 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..255        | Unassigned  |               |
              +---------------+-------------+---------------+

5.2.  Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry

   IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes
   Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an
   ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060].  The
   bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF type.
   Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation.  New
   values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126].

   Bits 0-23 are unassigned.  This document assigns bit 24 (g-bit) to
   LISP-GPE.  Bits 25-31 are assigned in [RFC8060]).

   +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
   | Bit      | Bit   | Assigned to                        | Reference |
   | Position | Name  |                                    |           |
   +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
   | 0-23     |       | Unassigned                         |           |
   | 24       | g     | LISP Generic Protocol Extension    | This      |
   |          |       | (LISP-GPE)                         | Document  |
   | 25       | U     | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE)    | [RFC8060] |
   | 26       | G     | Generic Network Virtualization     | [RFC8060] |
   |          |       | Encapsulation (GENEVE)             |           |
   | 27       | N     | Network Virtualization - Generic   | [RFC8060] |
   |          |       | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE)     |           |
   | 28       | v     | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension   | [RFC8060] |
   |          |       | (VXLAN-GPE)                        |           |
   | 29       | V     | Virtual eXtensible Local Area      | [RFC8060] |
   |          |       | Network (VXLAN)                    |           |
   | 30       | l     | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2)             | [RFC8060] |
   | 31       | L     | Locator/ID Separation Protocol     | [RFC8060] |
   |          |       | (LISP)                             |           |
   +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+








Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


6.  Security Considerations

   LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
   considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].

   With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and
   traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
   encapsulated.

7.  Acknowledgements and Contributors

   A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
   detailed review.

   This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;
   the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their
   respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption.  The editor of
   this document would like to thank and recognize them and their
   contributions.  These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable
   concepts and content for this document's creation.

   o  Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc.

   o  Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.

   o  Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc.

   o  Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc.

   o  Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc.

   o  Larry Kreeger

   o  John Lemon, Broadcom

   o  Puneet Agarwal, Innovium

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]
              Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf-
              lisp-6834bis-00 (work in progress), July 2018.






Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


   [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-14 (work in progress),
              July 2018.

   [IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
              DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
              opac?punumber=6991460>.

   [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>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc7835>.

   [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>.

   [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>.







Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension         August 2018


   [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
              "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-
              editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

Authors' Addresses

   Fabio Maino (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: fmaino@cisco.com


   John Lemon
   Broadcom
   270 Innovation Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com


   Puneet Agarwal
   Innovium
   USA

   Email: puneet@acm.org


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems

   Email: darlewis@cisco.com


   Michael Smith
   Cisco Systems

   Email: michsmit@cisco.com










Maino, et al.           Expires February 16, 2019              [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/