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

Versions: (draft-lewis-lisp-gpe) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 19

Internet Engineering Task Force                            F. Maino, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Lemon
Expires: January 27, 2021                                       Broadcom
                                                              P. Agarwal
                                                                Innovium
                                                                D. Lewis
                                                                M. Smith
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           July 26, 2020


                    LISP Generic Protocol Extension
                         draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-19

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to the Locator/ID Separation
   Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to
   support multi-protocol encapsulation and allow to introduce new
   protocol capabilities.

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 27, 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



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   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)  . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Implementation and Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Congestion Control Functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  UDP Checksum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6  . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  DSCP, ECN, TTL, and 802.1Q  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Detection of ETR Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

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.



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   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,
   when present, uses 8 bits of the field that was allocated to the
   echo-noncing and map-versioning features in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  Those two features are no longer
   available when the P-bit is used.  However, appropriate LISP-GPE
   (LISP Generic Protocol Extension) shim headers can be defined to
   specify capabilities that are equivalent to echo-noncing and/or map-
   versioning.

   Since all of the reserved bits of the LISP Data-Plane header have
   been allocated, LISP-GPE can also be used to extend the LISP Data-
   Plane header by defining Next Protocol "shim" headers that implements
   new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header.  For
   example, the use of the Group-Based Policy (GBP) header
   [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] or of the In-situ Operations,
   Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) header
   [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] with LISP-GPE, can be considered
   an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for Group-Based Policy
   functionalities or IOAM metadata.

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.






Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


        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 document specifies
   the protocol behavior when the P-bit is set to 1, no changes are
   introduced when the P-bit is set to 0.  The LISP-GPE header is shown
   in Figure 2 and described below.


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

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

      When the P-bit is set to 1, bits N, E, V, and bits 8-23 of the
      'Nonce/Map-Version/Next Protocol' field MUST be set to zero on
      transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.  Features equivalent
      to those that were implemented with bits N,E and V in
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], such as echo-noncing and map-
      versioning, can be implemented by defining appropriate LISP-GPE
      shim headers.

      When the P-bit is set to 1, the LISP-GPE header is encoded as:



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


        0 x 0 0 x 1 x x
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K|             0x0000            | Next Protocol |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                  Figure 3: LISP-GPE with P-bit set to 1

   Next Protocol:  When the P-bit is set to 1, 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:



      0x00 :  Reserved

      0x01 :  IPv4

      0x02 :  IPv6

      0x03 :  Ethernet

      0x04 :  Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]

      0x05 to 0x7D:  Unassigned

      0x7E, 0x7F:  Experimentation and testing

      0x80 to 0xFD:  Unassigned (shim headers)

      0xFE, 0xFF:  Experimentation and testing (shim headers)

      The values are tracked in the IANA LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry
      as described in Section 6.1.

   Next protocol values 0x7E, 0x7F and 0xFE, 0xFF are assigned for
   experimentation and testing as per [RFC3692].

   Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFD are assigned to protocols
   encoded as generic "shim" headers.  All shim protocols MUST use the
   header structure in Figure 4, which includes a Next Protocol field.
   When shim headers are used with other protocols identified by next




Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   protocol values from 0x00 to 0x7F, all the shim headers MUST come
   first.

   Shim headers can be used to incrementally deploy new GPE features,
   keeping the processing of shim headers known to a given xTR
   implementation in the 'fast' path (typically an ASIC), while punting
   the processing of the remaining new GPE features to the 'slow' path.

   Shim protocols MUST have the first 32 bits defined as:

    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      |    Length     |   Reserved    | Next Protocol |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                    Protocol Specific Fields                   ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Figure 4: Shim Header

   Where:

   Type:  This field identifies the different messages of this protocol.

   Length:  The length, in 4-octet units, of this protocol message not
      including the first 4 octets.

   Reserved:  The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined
      in this message.

   Next Protocol Field:  The next protocol field contains the protocol
      of the encapsulated payload.  The values are tracked in the IANA
      LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry as described in Section 6.1.

4.  Implementation and Deployment Considerations

4.1.  Applicability Statement

   LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP
   usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085].  The applicability of
   these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the
   nature of the encapsulated payload.

   [RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications,
   1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment.  The controlled
   environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   cooperating domains.  A network in a controlled environment can be
   managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general
   Internet this cannot be done.  Hence requirements for a tunnel
   protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less
   restrictive than the requirements of general internet.

   LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered
   by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol.  The
   common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating
   entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other
   large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and
   topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and
   Internet topology, routing, and addressing.

   LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by
   a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators
   that fits with the definition of controlled environments in
   [RFC8085].

   For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled
   environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP
   network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g.,
   via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion.  Significant
   portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086].

   It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the
   guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to
   their LISP-GPE deployments

4.2.  Congestion Control Functionality

   LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality
   and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control.
   As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or
   within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE).
   An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion
   by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data
   traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity.

   Keeping in mind the reccomendation above, new encapsulated payloads,
   when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompained by a set of
   guidelines derived from [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].  Such new
   protocols should be designed for explicit congestion signals to
   propagate consistently from lower layer protocols into IP.  Then the
   IP internetwork layer can act as a portability layer to carry
   congestion notification from non-IP-aware congested nodes up to the
   transport layer (L4).  By following the guidelines in
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines], subnetwork designers can



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   enable a layer-2 protocol to participate in congestion control
   without dropping packets via propagation of explicit congestion
   notification (ECN [RFC3168] ) to receivers.

4.3.  UDP Checksum

   For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies
   how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP
   checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is
   desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption.

   In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and
   payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different
   tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD
   be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4.  The UDP checksum
   provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in
   transit.  These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or
   cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical-
   layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see
   Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]).  In deployments where such a risk exists,
   an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as
   offered by IPSec.

   An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum
   if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity
   mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the
   conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met.

4.3.1.  UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6

   By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported
   over IPv6.  A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP
   checksum if additional requirements described in this section are
   met.

   When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6
   headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential
   data corruption.  As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum
   when transported over IPv6.  An operator MAY choose to configure to
   operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed
   controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the
   following conditions are met:

   a.  It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely
       (perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay
       network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected
       packet corruption




Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   b.  It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through
       historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum)
       that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where
       the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption

   c.  LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of
       misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer
       checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission)

   In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum
   MUST meet the following requirements:

   1.  Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration
       for all LISP-GPE tunnels

   2.  If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such
       xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in
       section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section
       5 of [RFC6936]

   3.  The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and
       destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that
       is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other
       packets for which such check fails

   4.  The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6
       source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP
       checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of
       the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not
       to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address,
       irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or
       multicast address).  When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED
       to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use
       zero UDP checksum as is feasible

   5.  Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6
       with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet.
       Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the
       PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP
       network from networks carrying General Internet

   The above requirements do not change either the requirements
   specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements
   specified in [RFC6936].

   The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the
   destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of
   source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6
   header.  A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at
   least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section
   provides additional assurance.

4.4.  DSCP, ECN, TTL, and 802.1Q

   When encapsulating IP (including over Ethernet) packets [RFC2983]
   provides guidance for mapping DSCP between inner and outer IP
   headers.  The Pipe model typically fits better Network
   virtualization.  The DSCP value on the tunnel header is set based on
   a policy (which may be a fixed value, one based on the inner traffic
   class, or some other mechanism for grouping traffic).  Some aspects
   of the Uniform model (which treats the inner and outer DSCP value as
   a single field by copying on ingress and egress) may also apply, such
   as the ability to remark the inner header on tunnel egress based on
   transit marking.  However, the Uniform model is not conceptually
   consistent with network virtualization, which seeks to provide strong
   isolation between encapsulated traffic and the physical network.

   [RFC6040] describes the mechanism for exposing ECN capabilities on IP
   tunnels and propagating congestion markers to the inner packets.
   This behavior MUST be followed for IP packets encapsulated in LISP-
   GPE.

   Though Uniform or Pipe models could be used for TTL (or Hop Limit in
   case of IPv6) handling when tunneling IP packets, Pipe model is more
   aligned with network virtualization.  [RFC2003] provides guidance on
   handling TTL between inner IP header and outer IP tunnels; this model
   is more aligned with the Pipe model and is recommended for use with
   LISP-GPE for network virtualization applications.

   When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
   802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY
   be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the DSCP codepoint of the DS
   field defined in [RFC2474].

   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.

   Refer to Section 7 for consideration about the use of integrity
   protection for deployments, such as the public Internet, concerned
   with on-path attackers.







Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


5.  Backward Compatibility

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

   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.

5.1.  Detection of ETR Capabilities

   The discovery of xTR capabilities to support LISP-GPE is out of the
   scope of this document.  Given that the applicability domain of LISP-
   GPE is a traffic-managed controlled environment, ITR/ETR (xTR)
   configuration mechanisms may be used for this purpose.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  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 under the
   Specification Required policy [RFC8126].  The protocols that are
   being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards
   track protocols.






















Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   +--------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+
   | Next         | Description                         | Reference    |
   | Protocol     |                                     |              |
   +--------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+
   | 0x0          | Reserved                            | This         |
   |              |                                     | Document     |
   | 0x1          | IPv4                                | This         |
   |              |                                     | Document     |
   | 0x2          | IPv6                                | This         |
   |              |                                     | Document     |
   | 0x3          | Ethernet                            | This         |
   |              |                                     | Document     |
   | 0x4          | NSH                                 | This         |
   |              |                                     | Document     |
   | 0x05..0x7D   | Unassigned                          |              |
   | 0x7E..0x7F   | Experimentation and testing         | This         |
   |              |                                     | Document     |
   | 0x80..0xFD   | Unassigned (shim headers)           |              |
   | 0x8E..0x8F   | Experimentation and testing (shim   | This         |
   |              | headers)                            | Document     |
   +--------------+-------------------------------------+--------------+

7.  Security Considerations

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

   LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is
   subject to on-path adversaries that can make arbitrary modifications
   to the packet (including the P-Bit) to change or remove any part of
   the payload, or claim to encapsulate any protocol payload type.
   Typical integrity protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be
   used in combination with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that
   want to protect from on-path attackers.

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

8.  Acknowledgements and Contributors

   A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
   detailed review.  Thanks to Tom Herbert for the suggestion to assign
   codepoints for experimentations and testing.

   This Working 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



Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   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  Jennifer Lemon, Broadcom

   o  Puneet Agarwal, Innovium

9.  References

9.1.  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-32 (work in progress),
              March 2020.

   [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>.

   [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.






Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
              Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A.,
              Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE
              Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm-
              ioam-vxlan-gpe-03 (work in progress), November 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]
              Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler,
              "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to
              Protocols that Encapsulate IP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-
              encap-guidelines-13 (work in progress), May 2019.

   [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp]
              Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group
              Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon-
              vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019.

   [RFC2003]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2983]  Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
              RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.




Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


   [RFC6935]  Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
              UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.

   [RFC6936]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
              for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
              RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8086]  Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
              in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>.

   [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>.

   [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>.








Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       LISP Generic Protocol Extension           July 2020


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: fmaino@cisco.com


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

   Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com


   Puneet Agarwal
   Innovium
   USA

   Email: puneet@acm.org


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: darlewis@cisco.com


   Michael Smith
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: michsmit@cisco.com











Maino, et al.           Expires January 27, 2021               [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/