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

Versions: (draft-farinacci-lisp-rfc6830bis) 00 01 02 03 04

Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                                 V. Fuller
Intended status: Standards Track                                D. Meyer
Expires: January 18, 2018                                       D. Lewis
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       A. Cabellos (Ed.)
                                                           July 17, 2017

               The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)


   This document describes the data-plane protocol for the Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces, End-point
   Identifiers (EIDs) that identify end-hosts and Routing Locators
   (RLOCs) that identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
   effectively separates control from data, and allows routers to create
   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local map-cache.  The
   map-cache is populated by the LISP Control-Plane protocol

   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
   routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility,
   among other features.

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 January 18, 2018.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Basic Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Packet Flow Sequence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  LISP Encapsulation Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.1.  LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.2.  LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  Tunnel Header Field Descriptions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling  . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.2.  A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   10. Routing Locator Reachability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     10.1.  Echo Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     10.2.  RLOC-Probing Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . .  31
     13.1.  Clock Sweep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     13.2.  Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     13.3.  Database Map-Versioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   14. Multicast Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   16. Mobility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     16.1.  Slow Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     16.2.  Fast Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     16.3.  LISP Mobile Node Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   17. LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods  . . . . . . . .  38

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

     17.1.  First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     17.2.  Border/Edge xTRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     17.3.  ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
     17.4.  LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs  . . . . . . .  40
     17.5.  Packets Egressing a LISP Site  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   18. Traceroute Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     18.1.  IPv6 Traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     18.2.  IPv4 Traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     18.3.  Traceroute Using Mixed Locators  . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   19. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   20. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   21. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     21.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   22. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     22.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     22.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01  . . . . . . . .  52
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00  . . . . . . . .  52
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol
   (LISP).  LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the
   fundamental idea of separating the topological location of a network
   attachment point from the node's identity [CHIAPPA].  As a result
   LISP creates two namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that are
   used to identify end-hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) and
   routable Routing Locators (RLOCs), used to identify network
   attachment points.  LISP then defines functions for mapping between
   the two namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by
   devices using non-routable EIDs for transport across a network
   infrastructure that routes and forwards using RLOCs.

   LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from data-plane,
   this document specifies the data-plane, how LISP-capable routers
   (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the
   appropriate location.  Tunnel routers are equipped with a cache,
   called map-cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings.  The map-cache
   is populated using the LISP Control-Plane protocol

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   LISP does not require changes to either host protocol stack or to
   underlay routers.  By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP
   offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming and mobility, among
   other features.

   Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
   IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
   October 2006 (see [RFC4984])

   This document specifies the LISP data-plane encapsulation and other
   LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
   specifies the LISP control plane.  LISP deployment guidelines can be
   found in [RFC7215] and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network
   operational management.  Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
   describes the LISP architecture.

2.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Definition of Terms

   Provider-Independent (PI) Addresses:   PI addresses are an address
      block assigned from a pool where blocks are not associated with
      any particular location in the network (e.g., from a particular
      service provider) and are therefore not topologically aggregatable
      in the routing system.

   Provider-Assigned (PA) Addresses:   PA addresses are an address block
      assigned to a site by each service provider to which a site
      connects.  Typically, each block is a sub-block of a service
      provider Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [RFC4632] block and
      is aggregated into the larger block before being advertised into
      the global Internet.  Traditionally, IP multihoming has been
      implemented by each multihomed site acquiring its own globally
      visible prefix.  LISP uses only topologically assigned and
      aggregatable address blocks for RLOCs, eliminating this
      demonstrably non-scalable practice.

   Routing Locator (RLOC):   An RLOC is an IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6
      [RFC8200] address of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  An RLOC is
      the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to one
      or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically
      aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to
      which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is
      defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

      thought of as PA addresses.  Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the
      same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.

   Endpoint ID (EID):   An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
      IPv6) value used in the source and destination address fields of
      the first (most inner) LISP header of a packet.  The host obtains
      a destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address
      today, for example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
      lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
      The source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
      host's "local" IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet
      must have the same properties as any other IP address used in that
      manner; this means, among other things, that it must be globally
      unique.  An EID is allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block
      associated with the site where the host is located.  An EID can be
      used by a host to refer to other hosts.  EIDs MUST NOT be used as
      LISP RLOCs.  Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a
      hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
      facilitate scaling of the mapping database.  In addition, an EID
      block assigned to a site may have site-local structure
      (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
      visible to the global routing system.  In theory, the bit string
      that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
      different device.  As the architecture is realized, if a given bit
      string is both an RLOC and an EID, it must refer to the same
      entity in both cases.  When used in discussions with other
      Locator/ID separation proposals, a LISP EID will be called an
      "LEID".  Throughout this document, any references to "EID" refer
      to an LEID.

   EID-Prefix:   An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
      allocated to a site by an address allocation authority.  EID-
      Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses that make up
      a "database mapping".  EID-Prefix allocations can be broken up
      into smaller blocks when an RLOC set is to be associated with the
      larger EID-Prefix block.  A globally routed address block (whether
      PI or PA) is not inherently an EID-Prefix.  A globally routed
      address block MAY be used by its assignee as an EID block.  The
      converse is not supported.  That is, a site that receives an
      explicitly allocated EID-Prefix may not use that EID-Prefix as a
      globally routed prefix.  This would require coordination and
      cooperation with the entities managing the mapping infrastructure.
      Once this has been done, that block could be removed from the
      globally routed IP system, if other suitable transition and access
      mechanisms are in place.  Discussion of such transition and access
      mechanisms can be found in [RFC6832] and [RFC7215].

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   End-system:   An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
      packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header.  The end-system
      supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
      header when communicating globally (i.e., outside of its routing
      domain).  An end-system can be a host computer, a switch or router
      device, or any network appliance.

   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR):   An ITR is a router that resides in a
      LISP site.  Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
      destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
      by the ITR.  The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
      and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  The router then
      prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its globally routable
      RLOCs in the source address field and the result of the mapping
      lookup in the destination address field.  Note that this
      destination RLOC MAY be an intermediate, proxy device that has
      better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
      destination EID.  In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
      end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
      toward the Internet on the other side.

      Specifically, when a service provider prepends a LISP header for
      Traffic Engineering purposes, the router that does this is also
      regarded as an ITR.  The outer RLOC the ISP ITR uses can be based
      on the outer destination address (the originating ITR's supplied
      RLOC) or the inner destination address (the originating host's
      supplied EID).

   TE-ITR:   A TE-ITR is an ITR that is deployed in a service provider
      network that prepends an additional LISP header for Traffic
      Engineering purposes.

   Egress Tunnel Router (ETR):   An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
      packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
      one of its own RLOCs.  The router strips the "outer" header and
      forwards the packet based on the next IP header found.  In
      general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
      Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
      end-systems on the other side.  ETR functionality does not have to
      be limited to a router device.  A server host can be the endpoint
      of a LISP tunnel as well.

   TE-ETR:   A TE-ETR is an ETR that is deployed in a service provider
      network that strips an outer LISP header for Traffic Engineering

   xTR:   An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
      flow is not part of the context description.  "xTR" refers to the

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

      router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
      the term "Tunnel Router".  For example, "An xTR can be located at
      the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
      functionality at the CE router.

   LISP Router:   A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
      of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), or
      Proxy-ETR (PETR).

   EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache:   The EID-to-RLOC map-cache is a short-lived,
      on-demand table in an ITR that stores, tracks, and is responsible
      for timing out and otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings.
      This cache is distinct from the full "database" of EID-to-RLOC
      mappings; it is dynamic, local to the ITR(s), and relatively
      small, while the database is distributed, relatively static, and
      much more global in scope.

   EID-to-RLOC Database:   The EID-to-RLOC Database is a global
      distributed database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC
      mappings.  Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of
      the database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes
      "behind" the router.  These map to one of the router's own
      globally visible IP addresses.  The same database mapping entries
      MUST be configured on all ETRs for a given site.  In a steady
      state, the EID-Prefixes for the site and the Locator-Set for each
      EID-Prefix MUST be the same on all ETRs.  Procedures to enforce
      and/or verify this are outside the scope of this document.  Note
      that there MAY be transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the
      site and Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on
      all ETRs.  This has no negative implications, since a partial set
      of Locators can be used.

   Recursive Tunneling:   Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
      more than one LISP IP header.  Additional layers of tunneling MAY
      be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing
      as needed.  When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header
      is added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner"
      header.  Any references to tunnels in this specification refer to
      dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically

   Re-encapsulating Tunnels:   Re-encapsulating Tunneling occurs when an
      ETR removes a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend another
      LISP header.  Doing this allows a packet to be re-routed by the
      re-encapsulating router without adding the overhead of additional
      tunnel headers.  Any references to tunnels in this specification
      refer to dynamic encapsulating tunnels; they are never statically
      configured.  When using multiple mapping database systems, care

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

      must be taken to not create re-encapsulation loops through

   LISP Header:   LISP header is a term used in this document to refer
      to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
      specific 8-octet header that follow the UDP header and that an ITR
      prepends or an ETR strips.

   Address Family Identifier (AFI):   AFI is a term used to describe an
      address encoding in a packet.  An address family currently
      pertains to an IPv4 or IPv6 address.  See [AFN] and [RFC3232] for
      details.  An AFI value of 0 used in this specification indicates
      an unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is
      0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.

   Negative Mapping Entry:   A negative mapping entry, also known as a
      negative cache entry, is an EID-to-RLOC entry where an EID-Prefix
      is advertised or stored with no RLOCs.  That is, the Locator-Set
      for the EID-to-RLOC entry is empty or has an encoded Locator count
      of 0.  This type of entry could be used to describe a prefix from
      a non-LISP site, which is explicitly not in the mapping database.
      There are a set of well-defined actions that are encoded in a
      Negative Map-Reply.

   Data-Probe:   A Data-Probe is a LISP-encapsulated data packet where
      the inner-header destination address equals the outer-header
      destination address used to trigger a Map-Reply by a decapsulating
      ETR.  In addition, the original packet is decapsulated and
      delivered to the destination host if the destination EID is in the
      EID-Prefix range configured on the ETR.  Otherwise, the packet is
      discarded.  A Data-Probe is used in some of the mapping database
      designs to "probe" or request a Map-Reply from an ETR; in other
      cases, Map-Requests are used.  See each mapping database design
      for details.  When using Data-Probes, by sending Map-Requests on
      the underlying routing system, EID-Prefixes must be advertised.
      However, this is discouraged if the core is to scale by having
      less EID-Prefixes stored in the core router's routing tables.

   Proxy-ITR (PITR):   A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832].  A
      PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
      send packets to destinations at LISP sites.

   Proxy-ETR (PETR):   A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832].  A
      PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
      send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.

   Route-returnability:  Route-returnability is an assumption that the
      underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

      When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
      returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion.  A
      route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
      a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
      destination of the original message appears as the source of the
      returned message.

   LISP site:  LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that are
      under a single technical administration.  LISP routers that reside
      in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate the
      edge network from the core network.

   Client-side:  Client-side is a term used in this document to indicate
      a connection initiation attempt by an EID.  The ITR(s) at the LISP
      site are the first to get involved in obtaining database Map-Cache
      entries by sending Map-Request messages.

   Server-side:  Server-side is a term used in this document to indicate
      that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted for a
      destination EID.  The ETR(s) at the destination LISP site are the
      first to send Map-Replies to the source site initiating the
      connection.  The ETR(s) at this destination site can obtain
      mappings by gleaning information from Map-Requests, Data-Probes,
      or encapsulated packets.

   Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs):  Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
      LISP header.  They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
      down status of all ETRs at the local site.  These bits are used as
      a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
      status.  The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
      reachability algorithms described in Section 10.

   Anycast Address:  Anycast Address is a term used in this document to
      refer to the same IPv4 or IPv6 address configured and used on
      multiple systems at the same time.  An EID or RLOC can be an
      anycast address in each of their own address spaces.

4.  Basic Overview

   One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they
   do today.  The IP addresses that hosts use for tracking sockets and
   connections, and for sending and receiving packets, do not change.
   In LISP terminology, these IP addresses are called Endpoint
   Identifiers (EIDs).

   Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
   addresses.  When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
   referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs).  Most routers along a path

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   between two hosts will not change; they continue to perform routing/
   forwarding lookups on the destination addresses.  For routers between
   the source host and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the
   destination host, the destination address is an EID.  For the routers
   between the ITR and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.

   Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router".  A Tunnel Router
   prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
   prior to final delivery to their destination.  The IP addresses in
   this "outer header" are RLOCs.  During end-to-end packet exchange
   between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
   packet, and an ETR strips the new header.  The ITR performs EID-to-
   RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the
   RLOC as one of its IP addresses.

   Some basic rules governing LISP are:

   o  End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs.  They don't know
      that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume that packets get
      to their intended destinations.  In a system where LISP is
      deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed packets and assist
      in delivering them across the network core where EIDs cannot be
      routed.  The procedure a host uses to send IP packets does not

   o  EIDs are typically IP addresses assigned to hosts.

   o  Other types of EID are supported by LISP, see [RFC8060] for
      further information.

   o  LISP routers mostly deal with Routing Locator addresses.  See
      details in Section 4.1 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".

   o  RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
      topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
      Inter-Domain Routing) blocks.

   o  When a router originates packets, it may use as a source address
      either an EID or RLOC.  When acting as a host (e.g., when
      terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell (SSH),
      TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it may
      use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose.  An EID
      that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
      an EID is only routable within the scope of a site.  A typical BGP
      configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
      a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP sessions
      to other routers in a site while at the same time using RLOCs to
      terminate eBGP sessions to routers outside the site.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   o  Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to-
      end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation.  They are
      expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be
      encapsulated for inter-site communication.

   o  EID-Prefixes are likely to be hierarchically assigned in a manner
      that is optimized for administrative convenience and to facilitate
      scaling of the EID-to-RLOC mapping database.  The hierarchy is
      based on an address allocation hierarchy that is independent of
      the network topology.

   o  EIDs may also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
      local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).

   An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
   when re-routing of the path for a packet is desired.  A potential
   use-case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform
   Traffic Engineering for packets flowing through its network.  In such
   a situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
   additional ITR, and the RLOC it uses for the new prepended header
   would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an intra-ISP traffic
   engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an inter-ISP traffic
   engineered path, where an agreement to build such a path exists).

   In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
   encapsulation loops, this document mandates that a maximum of two
   LISP headers can be prepended to a packet.  For initial LISP
   deployments, it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the
   first prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity
   separation and the second prepended header is used inside a service
   provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.

   Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
   For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
   might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
   host.  Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
   connected to the destination host.  Another example, perhaps for a
   VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
   site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
   Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
   Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.

4.1.  Packet Flow Sequence

   This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow,
   including also control-plane information as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The example also assumes the following

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   o  Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
      "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly what host1 would do if the site
      was not using LISP.

   o  Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
      (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
      provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.

   o  The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
      destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
      located anywhere in the LISP site.

   o  Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database system by using the
      LISP control-plane protocol documented in
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  A Map-Request is sent for an external
      destination when the destination is not found in the forwarding
      table or matches a default route.

   o  Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology
      using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] control-plane protocol.

   Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server

   1.  host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
       host2.xyz.example.com.  It does a DNS lookup on
       host2.xyz.example.com.  An A/AAAA record is returned.  This
       address is the destination EID.  The locally assigned address of
       host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID.  An IPv4 or IPv6
       packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
       IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.

   2.  The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
       of one of the ETRs at the destination site.  The specific method
       used to do this is not described in this example.  See
       [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for further information.

   3.  The ITR sends a LISP Map-Request as specified in
       [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  Map-Requests SHOULD be rate-limited.

   4.  The mapping system helps forwarding the Map-Request to the
       corresponding ETR.  When the Map-Request arrives at one of the
       ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
       control message.

   5.  The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
       matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to-
       RLOC mapping database.  This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

       is supporting for the site it resides in.  If there is no match,
       the Map-Request is dropped.  Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is
       returned to the ITR.

   6.  The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message (to
       check for format validity), and stores the mapping information
       from the packet.  This information is stored in the ITR's EID-to-
       RLOC map-cache.  Note that the map-cache is an on-demand cache.
       An ITR will manage its map-cache in such a way that optimizes for
       its resource constraints.

   7.  Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
       host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the
       ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
       address learned from the ETR.  Note that the packet MAY be sent
       to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
       to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
       Locator-Set policy.

   8.  The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
       address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
       of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
       the attached destination host.

   9.  In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
       direction, an ETR can OPTIONALLY create a cache entry that maps
       the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the source
       RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP packet.
       Such a cache entry is termed a "gleaned" mapping and only
       contains a single RLOC for the EID in question.  More complete
       information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending
       a LISP Map-Request for that EID.  Both the ITR and the ETR may
       also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC.

5.  LISP Encapsulation Details

   Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
   larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to
   the ETR.  It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get
   fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR.  Instead, the packet
   is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message is
   returned to the source.

   This specification RECOMMENDS that implementations provide support
   for one of the proposed fragmentation and reassembly schemes.  Two
   existing schemes are detailed in Section 7.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
   architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
   header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6
   packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header
   is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
   format).  The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
   homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
   combinations MUST be supported.  Additional types of EIDs are defined
   in [RFC8060].

5.1.  LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format

        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
     / |Version|  IHL  |Type of Service|          Total Length         |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   OH  |  Time to Live | Protocol = 17 |         Header Checksum       |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                    Source Routing Locator                     |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                 Destination Routing Locator                   |
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = 4341        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
   L   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|  IHL  |Type of Service|          Total Length         |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   IH  |  Time to Live |    Protocol   |         Header Checksum       |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                           Source EID                          |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                         Destination EID                       |

       IHL = IP-Header-Length

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

5.2.  LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format

        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
     / |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Payload Length        | Next Header=17|   Hop Limit   |
   v   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
   O   +                                                               +
   u   |                                                               |
   t   +                     Source Routing Locator                    +
   e   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   H   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   d   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   ^   +                  Destination Routing Locator                  +
   |   |                                                               |
    \  +                                                               +
     \ |                                                               |
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = 4341        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
   L   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version| Traffic Class |           Flow Label                  |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /   |         Payload Length        |  Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
   v   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
   I   +                                                               +
   n   |                                                               |
   n   +                          Source EID                           +
   e   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   H   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   d   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   ^   +                        Destination EID                        +
   \   |                                                               |
    \  +                                                               +
     \ |                                                               |

5.3.  Tunnel Header Field Descriptions

   Inner Header (IH):  The inner header is the header on the datagram
      received from the originating host.  The source and destination IP
      addresses are EIDs [RFC0791] [RFC8200].

   Outer Header: (OH)  The outer header is a new header prepended by an
      ITR.  The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
      router's EID-to-RLOC Cache.  The IP protocol number is "UDP (17)"
      from [RFC0768].  The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
      'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and

   UDP Header:  The UDP header contains an ITR selected source port when
      encapsulating a packet.  See Section 12 for details on the hash
      algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the
      inner header.  The destination port MUST be set to the well-known
      IANA-assigned port value 4341.

   UDP Checksum:  The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
      by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 encapsulation
      [RFC6935] [RFC6936].  When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
      received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
      decapsulation.  When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
      checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
      When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
      choose to verify the checksum value.  If it chooses to perform
      such verification, and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
      silently dropped.  If the ETR chooses not to perform the
      verification, or performs the verification successfully, the
      packet MUST be accepted for decapsulation.  The handling of UDP
      zero checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including
      LISP, is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].

   UDP Length:  The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
      packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
      the UDP and LISP header lengths.  For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
      the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
      Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
      the UDP and LISP headers.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit.  When this bit is set to 1,
      the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
      contain a Nonce.  See Section 10.1 for details.  Both N- and
      V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet.  If they are, a
      decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
      having a Nonce value present.

   L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit.  When
      this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
      32 bits of the LISP header are in use.

     x 1 x x 0 x x x
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
    |                      Locator-Status-Bits                      |

   E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request bit.  This bit MUST be ignored
      and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0.  When the N-bit is
      set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting that the
      nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
      encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR.  See
      Section 10.1 for details.

   V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit.  When this bit is set to
      1, the N-bit MUST be 0.  Refer to Section 13.3 for more details.
      This bit indicates that the LISP header is encoded in this
      case as:

     0 x 0 1 x x x x
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|  Source Map-Version   |   Dest Map-Version    |
    |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |

   I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit.  See Section 8 for more details.
      When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field is
      reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as an
      Instance ID.  If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order 8 bits
      are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt.  The format of the
      LISP header would look like this:

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

     x x x x 1 x x x
    |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
    |                 Instance ID                   |     LSBs      |

   R: The R-bit is a Reserved bit for future use.  It MUST be set to 0
      on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   KK:  The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsualted packets are
      encrypted.  The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
      encrypted.  See [RFC8061] for further information.

   LISP Nonce:  The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
      randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1.  Nonce
      generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
      required to generate different nonces when sending to different
      destinations.  However, the same nonce can be used for a period of
      time to the same destination.  The nonce is also used when the
      E-bit is set to request the nonce value to be echoed by the other
      side when packets are returned.  When the E-bit is clear but the
      N-bit is set, a remote ITR is either echoing a previously
      requested echo-nonce or providing a random nonce.  See
      Section 10.1 for more details.

   LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs):  When the L-bit is also set, the
      'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
      indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
      source site.  Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
      value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
      The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
      significant bit of the field.  The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
      is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1.  When a
      Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
      that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status.  See
      Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
      the ETRs at the same site.  When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
      that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
      different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
      encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
      that the inner-header source EID address matches.  If the LSB for
      an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at least one RLOC
      with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.

   When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   o  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
      the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
      Live' field.

   o  The outer-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class'
      field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header
      'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below).

   When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

   o  The inner-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
      the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
      Live' field, when the Time to Live value of the outer header is
      less than the Time to Live value of the inner header.  Failing to
      perform this check can cause the Time to Live of the inner header
      to increment across encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This
      check is also performed when doing initial encapsulation, when a
      packet comes to an ITR or PITR destined for a LISP site.

   o  The inner-header 'Type of Service' field (or the 'Traffic Class'
      field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the outer-header
      'Type of Service' field (with one exception; see below).

   Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
   encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
   new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
   header minus 1.

   Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it
   preserves the distance the host intended the packet to travel;
   second, and more importantly, it provides for suppression of looping
   packets in the event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
   misconfiguration.  See Section 18.3 for TTL exception handling for
   traceroute packets.

   The Explicit Congestion Notification ('ECN') field occupies bits 6
   and 7 of both the IPv4 'Type of Service' field and the IPv6 'Traffic
   Class' field [RFC3168].  The 'ECN' field requires special treatment
   in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion [RFC3168].
   ITR encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the inner
   header to the outer header.  Re-encapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit
   'ECN' field from the stripped outer header to the new outer header.
   If the 'ECN' field contains a congestion indication codepoint (the
   value is '11', the Congestion Experienced (CE) codepoint), then ETR
   decapsulation MUST copy the 2-bit 'ECN' field from the stripped outer
   header to the surviving inner header that is used to forward the
   packet beyond the ETR.  These requirements preserve CE indications
   when a packet that uses ECN traverses a LISP tunnel and becomes

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   marked with a CE indication due to congestion between the tunnel

6.  LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache

   ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred as LISP EID-to-
   RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes to locator
   sets.  The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID space to
   the corresponding RLOC network attachment point.

   When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to
   destinations outside of the site a longest-prefix match lookup of the
   EID is done to the map-cache.

   When the lookup succeeds, the locator-set retrieved from the map-
   cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location.

   If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using
   the LISP control-plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The
   mapping is then stored in the local map-cache to forward subsequent
   packets addressed to the same EID-prefix.

   The map-cache is a local cache of mappings, entries are expired based
   on the associated Time to live.  In addition, entries can be updated
   with more current information, see Section 13 for further information
   on this.  Finally, the map-cache also contains reachability
   information about EIDs and RLOCs, and uses LISP reachability
   information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, see
   Section 10 for the specific mechanisms.

7.  Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets

   This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed
   the path MTU between the ITR and ETR.

   It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
   mechanism should be implemented.  Both or neither can be used, since
   it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
   issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.

   Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
   and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
   also apply to a TE-ITR.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

7.1.  A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling

   An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as

   1.  Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
       prepends to a packet.  This includes the UDP and LISP header

   2.  Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
       an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
       intermediate routers to fragment the packet.

   3.  Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
       packet, in octets, an ITR must receive from the source so the
       effective MTU can be met.  That is, L = S + H.

   When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
   octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
   octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets
   from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the
   original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments.  A LISP header is then
   prepended to each fragment.  The size of the encapsulated fragments
   is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path
   MTU between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.

   When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
   individually encapsulated packets.  It strips the LISP headers and
   then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
   destination site.  The two fragments are reassembled at the
   destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
   the source host.  Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
   encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.

   This behavior is performed by the ITR when the source host originates
   a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to 0.  When the
   'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, or the packet is an IPv6
   packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the packet
   when the size is greater than L and send an ICMP Unreachable/
   Fragmentation-Needed message to the source with a value of S, where S
   is (L - H).

   When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
   implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
   can be avoided.  An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
   to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU
   issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   This specification RECOMMENDS that L be defined as 1500.

7.2.  A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling

   An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as follows
   and was first introduced in [OPENLISP]:

   1.  The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
       Map-Cache entry.  The effective MTU is what the core network can
       deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.

   2.  When an IPv6-encapsulated packet, or an IPv4-encapsulated packet
       with the DF bit set to 1, exceeds what the core network can
       deliver, one of the intermediate routers on the path will send an
       ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed message to the ITR.  The
       ITR will parse the ICMP message to determine which Locator is
       affected by the effective MTU change and then record the new
       effective MTU value in the Map-Cache entry.

   3.  When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
       site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
       stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
       EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMP Unreachable/
       Fragmentation-Needed message back to the source.  The packet size
       advertised by the ITR in the ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-
       Needed message is the effective MTU minus the LISP encapsulation

   Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
   stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
   destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.

8.  Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP

   When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private
   addresses [RFC1918] as EID-Prefixes, their address spaces MUST remain
   segregated due to possible address duplication.  An Instance ID in
   the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI-based address
   unique.  See IANA Considerations of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for
   details on possible address encodings.

   An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet.  An ITR
   that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
   router to uniquely identify the address space.  The value is copied
   to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
   to 1.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
   header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
   to use for the inner destination EID lookup.

   For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
   24-bit Instance ID.

   The Instance ID that is stored in the mapping database when LISP-DDT
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used is 32 bits in length.  That means the
   control-plane can store more instances than a given data-plane can
   use.  Multiple data-planes can use the same 32-bit space as long as
   the low-order 24 bits don't overlap among xTRs.

9.  Routing Locator Selection

   Both the client-side and server-side may need control over the
   selection of RLOCs for conversations between them.  This control is
   achieved by manipulating the 'Priority' and 'Weight' fields in EID-
   to-RLOC Map-Reply messages.  Alternatively, RLOC information MAY be
   gleaned from received tunneled packets or EID-to-RLOC Map-Request

   The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
   controls that are available:

   o  The server-side returns one RLOC.  The client-side can only use
      one RLOC.  The server-side has complete control of the selection.

   o  The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
      has the same best Priority.  The client can only use the subset
      list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side.  In
      this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load-
      splitting across its members.  The client-side can use RLOCs
      outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
      is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255).  Some
      sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
      destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
      has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
      list are unreachable.

   o  The server-side sets a Weight of 0 for the RLOC subset list.  In
      this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
      spread across the subset list.  Control is shared by the server-
      side determining the list and the client determining load
      distribution.  Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
      server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   o  Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides not to send
      a Map-Request.  For example, if the server-side ETR does not send
      Map-Requests, it gleans RLOCs from the client-side ITR, giving the
      client-side ITR responsibility for bidirectional RLOC reachability
      and preferability.  Server-side ETR gleaning of the client-side
      ITR RLOC is done by caching the inner-header source EID and the
      outer-header source RLOC of received packets.  The client-side ITR
      controls how traffic is returned and can alternate using an outer-
      header source RLOC, which then can be added to the list the
      server-side ETR uses to return traffic.  Since no Priority or
      Weights are provided using this method, the server-side ETR MUST
      assume that each client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority
      with a Weight of zero.  In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding
      cannot be conveyed in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache on
      Tunnel Routers can grow to be very large.

   o  A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry, one learned from the source RLOC of a
      received encapsulated packet, is only stored and used for a few
      seconds, pending verification.  Verification is performed by
      sending a Map-Request to the source EID (the inner-header IP
      source address) of the received encapsulated packet.  A reply to
      this "verifying Map-Request" is used to fully populate the Map-
      Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID and is stored and used for the
      time indicated from the 'TTL' field of a received Map-Reply.  When
      a verified Map-Cache entry is stored, data gleaning no longer
      occurs for subsequent packets that have a source EID that matches
      the EID-Prefix of the verified entry.  This "gleaning" mechanism
      is OPTIONAL.

   RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
   reachable when the R-bit for the Locator record is set to 1.  When
   the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate to the
   RLOC.  Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor that
   stored in the mapping database system provides reachability
   information for RLOCs.  Note that reachability is not part of the
   mapping system and is determined using one or more of the Routing
   Locator reachability algorithms described in the next section.

10.  Routing Locator Reachability

   Several mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are currently

   1.  An ETR may examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
       an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR.  If the ETR is
       also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
       ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   2.  An ITR may receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host
       Unreachable message for an RLOC it is using.  This indicates that
       the RLOC is likely down.  Note that trusting ICMP messages may
       not be desirable, but neither is ignoring them completely.
       Implementations are encouraged to follow current best practices
       in treating these conditions.

   3.  An ITR that participates in the global routing system can
       determine that an RLOC is down if no BGP Routing Information Base
       (RIB) route exists that matches the RLOC IP address.

   4.  An ITR may receive an ICMP Port Unreachable message from a
       destination host.  This occurs if an ITR attempts to use
       interworking [RFC6832] and LISP-encapsulated data is sent to a
       non-LISP-capable site.

   5.  An ITR may receive a Map-Reply from an ETR in response to a
       previously sent Map-Request.  The RLOC source of the Map-Reply is
       likely up, since the ETR was able to send the Map-Reply to the

   6.  When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
       source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely up.

   7.  An ITR/ETR pair can use the Locator reachability algorithms
       described in this section, namely Echo-Noncing or RLOC-Probing.

   When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
   Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
   will receive up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
   reachability for all ETRs at the site.  CE-based ITRs at the source
   site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
   IGP as follows:

   o  Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
      route into the site IGP.

   o  If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE fails, its
      default route will either time out or be withdrawn.

   Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
   originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
   for them.

   RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1.  The
   Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
   to n-1 starting with the least significant bit.  For example, if an
   RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
   significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
   the packets they encapsulate.

   When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it will check for any change in
   the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field.  When a bit goes from 1 to 0, the
   ETR, if acting also as an ITR, will refrain from encapsulating
   packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down.  It will only resume
   using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit returns to a
   value of 1.  Locator-Status-Bits are associated with a Locator-Set
   per EID-Prefix.  Therefore, when a Locator becomes unreachable, the
   Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that Locator's position in the
   list returned by the last Map-Reply will be set to zero for that
   particular EID-Prefix.

   When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
   still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided
   they are injected into the IGP.  This is typically done when a /32
   address is configured on a loopback interface.

   When ITRs receive ICMP Network Unreachable or Host Unreachable
   messages as a method to determine unreachability, they will refrain
   from using Locators that are described in Locator lists of Map-
   Replies.  However, using this approach is unreliable because many
   network operators turn off generation of ICMP Destination Unreachable

   If an ITR does receive an ICMP Network Unreachable or Host
   Unreachable message, it MAY originate its own ICMP Destination
   Unreachable message destined for the host that originated the data
   packet the ITR encapsulated.

   Also, BGP-enabled ITRs can unilaterally examine the RIB to see if a
   locator address from a Locator-Set in a mapping entry matches a
   prefix.  If it does not find one and BGP is running in the Default-
   Free Zone (DFZ), it can decide to not use the Locator even though the
   Locator-Status-Bits indicate that the Locator is up.  In this case,
   the path from the ITR to the ETR that is assigned the Locator is not
   available.  More details are in [I-D.meyer-loc-id-implications].

   Optionally, an ITR can send a Map-Request to a Locator, and if a Map-
   Reply is returned, reachability of the Locator has been determined.
   Obviously, sending such probes increases the number of control
   messages originated by Tunnel Routers for active flows, so Locators
   are assumed to be reachable when they are advertised.

   This assumption does create a dependency: Locator unreachability is
   detected by the receipt of ICMP Host Unreachable messages.  When a

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   Locator has been determined to be unreachable, it is not used for
   active traffic; this is the same as if it were listed in a Map-Reply
   with Priority 255.

   The ITR can test the reachability of the unreachable Locator by
   sending periodic Requests.  Both Requests and Replies MUST be rate-
   limited.  Locator reachability testing is never done with data
   packets, since that increases the risk of packet loss for end-to-end

   When an ETR decapsulates a packet, it knows that it is reachable from
   the encapsulating ITR because that is how the packet arrived.  In
   most cases, the ETR can also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to
   be true, due to the possibility of path asymmetry.  In the presence
   of unidirectional traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD
   NOT use the lack of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is
   unreachable.  Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to
   determine reachability.

10.1.  Echo Nonce Algorithm

   When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different
   sites, a data-plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to
   determine reachability between an ITR and ETR.  When an ITR wants to
   solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit
   nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data

   When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is
   forwarded as normal.  When the ETR next sends a data packet to the
   ITR, it includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set and
   E-bit cleared.  The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that the
   path to and from the ETR is up.

   The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
   in the echo-nonce-request state.  The time the ITR waits to process
   the echoed nonce before it determines the path is unreachable is
   variable and is a choice left for the implementation.

   If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the
   nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request state, then the
   path to the ETR is unreachable.  This decision may be overridden by
   other Locator reachability algorithms.  Once the ITR determines that
   the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for
   that EID-Prefix.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here.  Both devices MUST
   be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce
   mechanism to operate.

   The ITR and ETR may both go into the echo-nonce-request state at the
   same time.  The number of packets sent or the time during which echo
   nonce requests are sent is an implementation-specific setting.
   However, when an ITR is in the echo-nonce-request state, it can echo
   the ETR's nonce in the next set of packets that it encapsulates and
   subsequently continue sending echo-nonce-request packets.

   This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path
   reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional.  That is, the
   ETR receiving traffic at a site may not be the same device as an ITR
   that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is
   unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.

   The echo-nonce algorithm is bilateral.  That is, if one side sets the
   E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, then the
   echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
   erroneously consider the Locator unreachable.  An ITR SHOULD only set
   the E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is
   enabled for echo-noncing.  This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map-
   Reply message.

   Note that other Locator reachability mechanisms are being researched
   and can be used to compliment or even override the echo nonce
   algorithm.  See the next section for an example of control-plane

10.2.  RLOC-Probing Algorithm

   RLOC-Probing is a method that an ITR or PITR can use to determine the
   reachability status of one or more Locators that it has cached in a
   Map-Cache entry.  The probe-bit of the Map-Request and Map-Reply
   messages is used for RLOC-Probing.

   RLOC-Probing is done in the control plane on a timer basis, where an
   ITR or PITR will originate a Map-Request destined to a locator
   address from one of its own locator addresses.  A Map-Request used as
   an RLOC-probe is NOT encapsulated and NOT sent to a Map-Server or to
   the mapping database system as one would when soliciting mapping
   data.  The EID record encoded in the Map-Request is the EID-Prefix of
   the Map-Cache entry cached by the ITR or PITR.  The ITR may include a
   mapping data record for its own database mapping information that
   contains the local EID-Prefixes and RLOCs for its site.  RLOC-probes
   are sent periodically using a jittered timer interval.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   When an ETR receives a Map-Request message with the probe-bit set, it
   returns a Map-Reply with the probe-bit set.  The source address of
   the Map-Reply is set according to the procedure described in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  The Map-Reply SHOULD contain mapping
   data for the EID-Prefix contained in the Map-Request.  This provides
   the opportunity for the ITR or PITR that sent the RLOC-probe to get
   mapping updates if there were changes to the ETR's database mapping

   There are advantages and disadvantages of RLOC-Probing.  The greatest
   benefit of RLOC-Probing is that it can handle many failure scenarios
   allowing the ITR to determine when the path to a specific Locator is
   reachable or has become unreachable, thus providing a robust
   mechanism for switching to using another Locator from the cached
   Locator.  RLOC-Probing can also provide rough Round-Trip Time (RTT)
   estimates between a pair of Locators, which can be useful for network
   management purposes as well as for selecting low delay paths.  The
   major disadvantage of RLOC-Probing is in the number of control
   messages required and the amount of bandwidth used to obtain those
   benefits, especially if the requirement for failure detection times
   is very small.

   Continued research and testing will attempt to characterize the
   tradeoffs of failure detection times versus message overhead.

11.  EID Reachability within a LISP Site

   A site may be multihomed using two or more ETRs.  The hosts and
   infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
   Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
   mapping system.  One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
   reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
   When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
   R-bit associated with its own Locator.  And when the ETR is also an
   ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data

   It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site
   partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the
   EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub-
   ranges of the EID-Prefixes.  This problem is under investigation with
   the expectation that experiments will tell us more.  Note that this
   is not a new problem introduced by the LISP architecture.  The
   problem exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its
   reachability upstream.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

12.  Routing Locator Hashing

   When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message to
   a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set for the EID-Prefix may contain
   different Priority values for each locator address.  When more than
   one best Priority Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load-
   share traffic against the corresponding Locators.

   The following hash algorithm may be used by an ITR to select a
   Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:

   1.  Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional
       5-tuple hash can be used.  The traditional 5-tuple hash includes
       the source and destination addresses; source and destination TCP,
       UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) port numbers;
       and the IP protocol number field or IPv6 next-protocol fields of
       a packet that a host originates from within a LISP site.  When a
       packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP packet, the source and
       destination addresses only from the header are used to compute
       the hash.

   2.  Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
       stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.

   3.  The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
       minus 1".  Use the remainder to select the Locator in the

   Note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the source port number
   in the outer UDP header needs to be set.  Selecting a hashed value
   allows core routers that are attached to Link Aggregation Groups
   (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets across member links of
   such LAGs.  Otherwise, core routers would see a single flow, since
   packets have a source address of the ITR, for packets that are
   originated by different EIDs at the source site.  A suggested setting
   for the source port number computed by an ITR is a 5-tuple hash
   function on the inner header, as described above.

   Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
   balance packet load across members of a LAG.  The 5-tuple hash
   includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
   source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
   is TCP or UDP.  For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

13.  Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings

   Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
   store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
   date mapping is to re-request the mapping.  However, the ITRs do not
   know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
   which ITRs requested its mappings.  For scalability reasons, we want
   to maintain this approach but need to provide a way for ETRs to
   change their mappings and inform the sites that are currently
   communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.

   When adding a new Locator record in lexicographic order to the end of
   a Locator-Set, it is easy to update mappings.  We assume that new
   mappings will maintain the same Locator ordering as the old mapping
   but will just have new Locators appended to the end of the list.  So,
   some ITRs can have a new mapping while other ITRs have only an old
   mapping that is used until they time out.  When an ITR has only an
   old mapping but detects bits set in the Locator-Status-Bits that
   correspond to Locators beyond the list it has cached, it simply
   ignores them.  However, this can only happen for locator addresses
   that are lexicographically greater than the locator addresses in the
   existing Locator-Set.

   When a Locator record is inserted in the middle of a Locator-Set, to
   maintain lexicographic order, the SMR procedure in Section 13.2 is
   used to inform ITRs and PITRs of the new Locator-Status-Bit mappings.

   When a Locator record is removed from a Locator-Set, ITRs that have
   the mapping cached will not use the removed Locator because the xTRs
   will set the Locator-Status-Bit to 0.  So, even if the Locator is in
   the list, it will not be used.  For new mapping requests, the xTRs
   can set the Locator AFI to 0 (indicating an unspecified address), as
   well as setting the corresponding Locator-Status-Bit to 0.  This
   forces ITRs with old or new mappings to avoid using the removed

   If many changes occur to a mapping over a long period of time, one
   will find empty record slots in the middle of the Locator-Set and new
   records appended to the Locator-Set. At some point, it would be
   useful to compact the Locator-Set so the Locator-Status-Bit settings
   can be efficiently packed.

   We propose here three approaches for Locator-Set compaction: one
   operational mechanism and two protocol mechanisms.  The operational
   approach uses a clock sweep method.  The protocol approaches use the
   concept of Solicit-Map-Requests and Map-Versioning.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

13.1.  Clock Sweep

   The clock sweep approach uses planning in advance and the use of
   count-down TTLs to time out mappings that have already been cached.
   The default setting for an EID-to-RLOC mapping TTL is 24 hours.  So,
   there is a 24-hour window to time out old mappings.  The following
   clock sweep procedure is used:

   1.  24 hours before a mapping change is to take effect, a network
       administrator configures the ETRs at a site to start the clock
       sweep window.

   2.  During the clock sweep window, ETRs continue to send Map-Reply
       messages with the current (unchanged) mapping records.  The TTL
       for these mappings is set to 1 hour.

   3.  24 hours later, all previous cache entries will have timed out,
       and any active cache entries will time out within 1 hour.  During
       this 1-hour window, the ETRs continue to send Map-Reply messages
       with the current (unchanged) mapping records with the TTL set to
       1 minute.

   4.  At the end of the 1-hour window, the ETRs will send Map-Reply
       messages with the new (changed) mapping records.  So, any active
       caches can get the new mapping contents right away if not cached,
       or in 1 minute if they had the mapping cached.  The new mappings
       are cached with a TTL equal to the TTL in the Map-Reply.

13.2.  Solicit-Map-Request (SMR)

   Soliciting a Map-Request is a selective way for ETRs, at the site
   where mappings change, to control the rate they receive requests for
   Map-Reply messages.  SMRs are also used to tell remote ITRs to update
   the mappings they have cached.

   Since the ETRs don't keep track of remote ITRs that have cached their
   mappings, they do not know which ITRs need to have their mappings
   updated.  As a result, an ETR will solicit Map-Requests (called an
   SMR message) from those sites to which it has been sending
   encapsulated data for the last minute.  In particular, an ETR will
   send an SMR to an ITR to which it has recently sent encapsulated

   An SMR message is simply a bit set in a Map-Request message.  An ITR
   or PITR will send a Map-Request when they receive an SMR message.
   Both the SMR sender and the Map-Request responder MUST rate-limit
   these messages.  Rate-limiting can be implemented as a global rate-
   limiter or one rate-limiter per SMR destination.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   The following procedure shows how an SMR exchange occurs when a site
   is doing Locator-Set compaction for an EID-to-RLOC mapping:

   1.  When the database mappings in an ETR change, the ETRs at the site
       begin to send Map-Requests with the SMR bit set for each Locator
       in each Map-Cache entry the ETR caches.

   2.  A remote ITR that receives the SMR message will schedule sending
       a Map-Request message to the source locator address of the SMR
       message or to the mapping database system.  A newly allocated
       random nonce is selected, and the EID-Prefix used is the one
       copied from the SMR message.  If the source Locator is the only
       Locator in the cached Locator-Set, the remote ITR SHOULD send a
       Map-Request to the database mapping system just in case the
       single Locator has changed and may no longer be reachable to
       accept the Map-Request.

   3.  The remote ITR MUST rate-limit the Map-Request until it gets a
       Map-Reply while continuing to use the cached mapping.  When
       Map-Versioning as described in Section 13.3 is used, an SMR
       sender can detect if an ITR is using the most up-to-date database

   4.  The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping will reply to the
       Map-Request with a Map-Reply message that has a nonce from the
       SMR-invoked Map-Request.  The Map-Reply messages SHOULD be rate-
       limited.  This is important to avoid Map-Reply implosion.

   5.  The ETRs at the site with the changed mapping record the fact
       that the site that sent the Map-Request has received the new
       mapping data in the Map-Cache entry for the remote site so the
       Locator-Status-Bits are reflective of the new mapping for packets
       going to the remote site.  The ETR then stops sending SMR

   For security reasons, an ITR MUST NOT process unsolicited Map-
   Replies.  To avoid Map-Cache entry corruption by a third party, a
   sender of an SMR-based Map-Request MUST be verified.  If an ITR
   receives an SMR-based Map-Request and the source is not in the
   Locator-Set for the stored Map-Cache entry, then the responding Map-
   Request MUST be sent with an EID destination to the mapping database
   system.  Since the mapping database system is a more secure way to
   reach an authoritative ETR, it will deliver the Map-Request to the
   authoritative source of the mapping data.

   When an ITR receives an SMR-based Map-Request for which it does not
   have a cached mapping for the EID in the SMR message, it MAY not send
   an SMR-invoked Map-Request.  This scenario can occur when an ETR

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   sends SMR messages to all Locators in the Locator-Set it has stored
   in its map-cache but the remote ITRs that receive the SMR may not be
   sending packets to the site.  There is no point in updating the ITRs
   until they need to send, in which case they will send Map-Requests to
   obtain a Map-Cache entry.

13.3.  Database Map-Versioning

   When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
   the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
   ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
   started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.

   An ETR, when it sends Map-Reply messages, conveys its own Map-Version
   Number.  This is known as the Destination Map-Version Number.  ITRs
   include the Destination Map-Version Number in packets they
   encapsulate to the site.  When an ETR decapsulates a packet and
   detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the
   current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in
   Section 13.2 occurs.

   An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map-
   Version Number.  This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.
   When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map-
   Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent in a
   Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one
   of the ETRs for the source site.

   A Map-Version Number is used as a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so
   values that are greater are considered to be more recent.  A value of
   0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version
   Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no
   comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.

   A Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
   well.  This is a good way for the Map-Server to assure that all ETRs
   for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map-
   Version Number.

   See [RFC6834] for a more detailed analysis and description of
   Database Map-Versioning.

14.  Multicast Considerations

   A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
   architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
   independent receiver host locations.  The address encoding itself
   does not determine the location of the receiver(s).  The multicast

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   routing protocol, and the network-based state the protocol creates,
   determine where the receivers are located.

   In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
   a Routing Locator.  Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs
   to be taken for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP
   header.  Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP
   header built by a source host will be used as the destination EID.
   The outer IP header (the destination Routing Locator address),
   prepended by a LISP router, can use the same group address as the
   destination Routing Locator, use a multicast or unicast Routing
   Locator obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or use other means to
   determine the group address mapping.

   With respect to the source Routing Locator address, the ITR prepends
   its own IP address as the source address of the outer IP header.
   Just like it would if the destination EID was a unicast address.
   This source Routing Locator address, like any other Routing Locator
   address, MUST be globally routable.

   There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, one that uses native
   multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the Mapping
   System and the other that uses only unicast routing in the underlay
   with support from the Mapping System.  See [RFC6831] and
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast], respectively, for details.
   Details for LISP-Multicast and interworking with non-LISP sites are
   described in [RFC6831] and [RFC6832].

15.  Router Performance Considerations

   LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based forwarding friendly".  A
   few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally implement

   o  When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
      destination address may not be the address of the router.  This
      makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
      hardware.  This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
      Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
      by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
      translation).  These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
      that control-plane processing should be performed.  The forwarding
      logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
      necessary.  There are a few proven cases where no changes to
      existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data-

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   o  On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
      octets to a MAC rewrite string and prepending the string as part
      of the outgoing encapsulation procedure.  Routers that support
      Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4
      tunneling [RFC3056] may already support this action.

   o  A packet's source address or interface the packet was received on
      can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding).  The VRF's
      routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC mappings.

   For performance issues related to map-cache management, see
   Section 19.

16.  Mobility Considerations

   There are several kinds of mobility, of which only some might be of
   concern to LISP.  Essentially, they are as follows.

16.1.  Slow Mobility

   A site wishes to change its attachment points to the Internet, and
   its LISP Tunnel Routers will have new RLOCs when it changes upstream
   providers.  Changes in EID-to-RLOC mappings for sites are expected to
   be handled by configuration, outside of LISP.

   An individual endpoint wishes to move but is not concerned about
   maintaining session continuity.  Renumbering is involved.  LISP can
   help with the issues surrounding renumbering [RFC4192] [LISA96] by
   decoupling the address space used by a site from the address spaces
   used by its ISPs [RFC4984].

16.2.  Fast Mobility

   Fast endpoint mobility occurs when an endpoint moves relatively
   rapidly, changing its IP-layer network attachment point.  Maintenance
   of session continuity is a goal.  This is where the Mobile IPv4
   [RFC5944] and Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275] [RFC4866] mechanisms are used and
   primarily where interactions with LISP need to be explored, such as
   the mechanisms in [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] when the EID moves
   but the RLOC is in the network infrastructure.

   In LISP, one possibility is to "glean" information.  When a packet
   arrives, the ETR could examine the EID-to-RLOC mapping and use that
   mapping for all outgoing traffic to that EID.  It can do this after
   performing a route-returnability check, to ensure that the new
   network location does have an internal route to that endpoint.
   However, this does not cover the case where an ITR (the node assigned
   the RLOC) at the mobile-node location has been compromised.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   Mobile IP packet exchange is designed for an environment in which all
   routing information is disseminated before packets can be forwarded.
   In order to allow the Internet to grow to support expected future
   use, we are moving to an environment where some information may have
   to be obtained after packets are in flight.  Modifications to IP
   mobility should be considered in order to optimize the behavior of
   the overall system.  Anything that decreases the number of new EID-
   to-RLOC mappings needed when a node moves, or maintains the validity
   of an EID-to-RLOC mapping for a longer time, is useful.

   In addition to endpoints, a network can be mobile, possibly changing
   xTRs.  A "network" can be as small as a single router and as large as
   a whole site.  This is different from site mobility in that it is
   fast and possibly short-lived, but different from endpoint mobility
   in that a whole prefix is changing RLOCs.  However, the mechanisms
   are the same, and there is no new overhead in LISP.  A map request
   for any endpoint will return a binding for the entire mobile prefix.

   If mobile networks become a more common occurrence, it may be useful
   to revisit the design of the mapping service and allow for dynamic
   updates of the database.

   The issue of interactions between mobility and LISP needs to be
   explored further.  Specific improvements to the entire system will
   depend on the details of mapping mechanisms.  Mapping mechanisms
   should be evaluated on how well they support session continuity for
   mobile nodes.  See [I-D.farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs] for more
   recent mechanisms which can provide near-zero packet loss during

16.3.  LISP Mobile Node Mobility

   A mobile device can use the LISP infrastructure to achieve mobility
   by implementing the LISP encapsulation and decapsulation functions
   and acting as a simple ITR/ETR.  By doing this, such a "LISP mobile
   node" can use topologically independent EID IP addresses that are not
   advertised into and do not impose a cost on the global routing
   system.  These EIDs are maintained at the edges of the mapping system
   in LISP Map-Servers and Map-Resolvers) and are provided on demand to
   only the correspondents of the LISP mobile node.

   Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-mn] for more details for when the EID and
   RLOC are co-located in the roaming node.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

17.  LISP xTR Placement and Encapsulation Methods

   This section will explore how and where ITRs and ETRs can be placed
   in the network and will discuss the pros and cons of each scenario.
   For a more detailed networkd design deployment recommendation, refer
   to [RFC7215].

   There are two basic deployment tradeoffs to consider: centralized
   versus distributed caches; and flat, Recursive, or Re-encapsulating
   Tunneling.  When deciding on centralized versus distributed caching,
   the following issues should be considered:

   o  Are the xTRs spread out so that the caches are spread across all
      the memories of each router?  A centralized cache is when an ITR
      keeps a cache for all the EIDs it is encapsulating to.  The packet
      takes a direct path to the destination Locator.  A distributed
      cache is when an ITR needs help from other Re-Encapsulating Tunnel
      Routers (RTRs) because it does not store all the cache entries for
      the EIDs it is encapsulating to.  So, the packet takes a path
      through RTRs that have a different set of cache entries.

   o  Should management "touch points" be minimized by only choosing a
      few xTRs, just enough for redundancy?

   o  In general, using more ITRs doesn't increase management load,
      since caches are built and stored dynamically.  On the other hand,
      using more ETRs does require more management, since EID-Prefix-to-
      RLOC mappings need to be explicitly configured.

   When deciding on flat, Recursive, or Re-Encapsulating Tunneling, the
   following issues should be considered:

   o  Flat tunneling implements a single encapsulation path between the
      source site and destination site.  This generally offers better
      paths between sources and destinations with a single encapsulation

   o  Recursive Tunneling is when encapsulated traffic is again further
      encapsulated in another tunnel, either to implement VPNs or to
      perform Traffic Engineering.  When doing VPN-based tunneling, the
      site has some control, since the site is prepending a new
      encapsulation header.  In the case of TE-based tunneling, the site
      may have control if it is prepending a new tunnel header, but if
      the site's ISP is doing the TE, then the site has no control.
      Recursive Tunneling generally will result in suboptimal paths but
      with the benefit of steering traffic to parts of the network that
      have more resources available.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   o  The technique of Re-Encapsulation ensures that packets only
      require one encapsulation header.  So, if a packet needs to be re-
      routed, it is first decapsulated by the RTR and then Re-
      Encapsulated with a new encapsulation header using a new RLOC.

   The next sub-sections will examine where xTRs and RTRs can reside in
   the network.

17.1.  First-Hop/Last-Hop xTRs

   By locating xTRs close to hosts, the EID-Prefix set is at the
   granularity of an IP subnet.  So, at the expense of more EID-Prefix-
   to-RLOC sets for the site, the caches in each xTR can remain
   relatively small.  But caches always depend on the number of non-
   aggregated EID destination flows active through these xTRs.

   With more xTRs doing encapsulation, the increase in control traffic
   grows as well: since the EID granularity is greater, more Map-
   Requests and Map-Replies are traveling between more routers.

   The advantage of placing the caches and databases at these stub
   routers is that the products deployed in this part of the network
   have better price-memory ratios than their core router counterparts.
   Memory is typically less expensive in these devices, and fewer routes
   are stored (only IGP routes).  These devices tend to have excess
   capacity, both for forwarding and routing states.

   LISP functionality can also be deployed in edge switches.  These
   devices generally have layer-2 ports facing hosts and layer-3 ports
   facing the Internet.  Spare capacity is also often available in these

17.2.  Border/Edge xTRs

   Using Customer Edge (CE) routers for xTR placement allows the EID
   space associated with a site to be reachable via a small set of RLOCs
   assigned to the CE-based xTRs for that site.

   This offers the opposite benefit of the first-hop/last-hop xTR
   scenario: the number of mapping entries and network management touch
   points is reduced, allowing better scaling.

   One disadvantage is that fewer network resources are used to reach
   host endpoints, thereby centralizing the point-of-failure domain and
   creating network choke points at the CE xTR.

   Note that more than one CE xTR at a site can be configured with the
   same IP address.  In this case, an RLOC is an anycast address.  This

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   allows resilience between the CE xTRs.  That is, if a CE xTR fails,
   traffic is automatically routed to the other xTRs using the same
   anycast address.  However, this comes with the disadvantage where the
   site cannot control the entrance point when the anycast route is
   advertised out from all border routers.  Another disadvantage of
   using anycast Locators is the limited advertisement scope of /32 (or
   /128 for IPv6) routes.

17.3.  ISP Provider Edge (PE) xTRs

   The use of ISP PE routers as xTRs is not the typical deployment
   scenario envisioned in this specification.  This section attempts to
   capture some of the reasoning behind this preference for implementing
   LISP on CE routers.

   The use of ISP PE routers for xTR placement gives an ISP, rather than
   a site, control over the location of the ETRs.  That is, the ISP can
   decide whether the xTRs are in the destination site (in either CE
   xTRs or last-hop xTRs within a site) or at other PE edges.  The
   advantage of this case is that two encapsulation headers can be
   avoided.  By having the PE be the first router on the path to
   encapsulate, it can choose a TE path first, and the ETR can
   decapsulate and Re-Encapsulate for a new encapsuluation path to the
   destination end site.

   An obvious disadvantage is that the end site has no control over
   where its packets flow or over the RLOCs used.  Other disadvantages
   include difficulty in synchronizing path liveness updates between CE
   and PE routers.

   As mentioned in earlier sections, a combination of these scenarios is
   possible at the expense of extra packet header overhead; if both site
   and provider want control, then Recursive or Re-Encapsulating Tunnels
   are used.

17.4.  LISP Functionality with Conventional NATs

   LISP routers can be deployed behind Network Address Translator (NAT)
   devices to provide the same set of packet services hosts have today
   when they are addressed out of private address space.

   It is important to note that a locator address in any LISP control
   message MUST be a globally routable address and therefore SHOULD NOT
   contain [RFC1918] addresses.  If a LISP xTR is configured with
   private RLOC addresses, they MUST be used only in the outer IP header
   so the NAT device can translate properly.  Otherwise, EID addresses
   MUST be translated before encapsulation is performed when LISP VPNs

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   are not in use.  Both NAT translation and LISP encapsulation
   functions could be co-located in the same device.

17.5.  Packets Egressing a LISP Site

   When a LISP site is using two ITRs for redundancy, the failure of one
   ITR will likely shift outbound traffic to the second.  This second
   ITR's cache may not be populated with the same EID-to-RLOC mapping
   entries as the first.  If this second ITR does not have these
   mappings, traffic will be dropped while the mappings are retrieved
   from the mapping system.  The retrieval of these messages may
   increase the load of requests being sent into the mapping system.

18.  Traceroute Considerations

   When a source host in a LISP site initiates a traceroute to a
   destination host in another LISP site, it is highly desirable for it
   to see the entire path.  Since packets are encapsulated from the ITR
   to the ETR, the hop across the tunnel could be viewed as a single
   hop.  However, LISP traceroute will provide the entire path so the
   user can see 3 distinct segments of the path from a source LISP host
   to a destination LISP host:

      Segment 1 (in source LISP site based on EIDs):

          source host ---> first hop ... next hop ---> ITR

      Segment 2 (in the core network based on RLOCs):

          ITR ---> next hop ... next hop ---> ETR

      Segment 3 (in the destination LISP site based on EIDs):

          ETR ---> next hop ... last hop ---> destination host

   For segment 1 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
   in the normal manner as they are today.  The ITR performs a TTL
   decrement and tests for 0 before encapsulating.  Therefore, the ITR's
   hop is seen by the traceroute source as having an EID address (the
   address of the site-facing interface).

   For segment 2 of the path, ICMP Time Exceeded messages are returned
   to the ITR because the TTL decrement to 0 is done on the outer
   header, so the destinations of the ICMP messages are the ITR RLOC
   address and the source RLOC address of the encapsulated traceroute
   packet.  The ITR looks inside of the ICMP payload to inspect the
   traceroute source so it can return the ICMP message to the address of
   the traceroute client and also retain the core router IP address in

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   the ICMP message.  This is so the traceroute client can display the
   core router address (the RLOC address) in the traceroute output.  The
   ETR returns its RLOC address and responds to the TTL decrement to 0,
   as the previous core routers did.

   For segment 3, the next-hop router downstream from the ETR will be
   decrementing the TTL for the packet that was encapsulated, sent into
   the core, decapsulated by the ETR, and forwarded because it isn't the
   final destination.  If the TTL is decremented to 0, any router on the
   path to the destination of the traceroute, including the next-hop
   router or destination, will send an ICMP Time Exceeded message to the
   source EID of the traceroute client.  The ICMP message will be
   encapsulated by the local ITR and sent back to the ETR in the
   originated traceroute source site, where the packet will be delivered
   to the host.

18.1.  IPv6 Traceroute

   IPv6 traceroute follows the procedure described above, since the
   entire traceroute data packet is included in the ICMP Time Exceeded
   message payload.  Therefore, only the ITR needs to pay special
   attention to forwarding ICMP messages back to the traceroute source.

18.2.  IPv4 Traceroute

   For IPv4 traceroute, we cannot follow the above procedure, since IPv4
   ICMP Time Exceeded messages only include the invoking IP header and
   8 octets that follow the IP header.  Therefore, when a core router
   sends an IPv4 Time Exceeded message to an ITR, all the ITR has in the
   ICMP payload is the encapsulated header it prepended, followed by a
   UDP header.  The original invoking IP header, and therefore the
   identity of the traceroute source, is lost.

   The solution we propose to solve this problem is to cache traceroute
   IPv4 headers in the ITR and to match them up with corresponding IPv4
   Time Exceeded messages received from core routers and the ETR.  The
   ITR will use a circular buffer for caching the IPv4 and UDP headers
   of traceroute packets.  It will select a 16-bit number as a key to
   find them later when the IPv4 Time Exceeded messages are received.
   When an ITR encapsulates an IPv4 traceroute packet, it will use the
   16-bit number as the UDP source port in the encapsulating header.
   When the ICMP Time Exceeded message is returned to the ITR, the UDP
   header of the encapsulating header is present in the ICMP payload,
   thereby allowing the ITR to find the cached headers for the
   traceroute source.  The ITR puts the cached headers in the payload
   and sends the ICMP Time Exceeded message to the traceroute source
   retaining the source address of the original ICMP Time Exceeded

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   message (a core router or the ETR of the site of the traceroute

   The signature of a traceroute packet comes in two forms.  The first
   form is encoded as a UDP message where the destination port is
   inspected for a range of values.  The second form is encoded as an
   ICMP message where the IP identification field is inspected for a
   well-known value.

18.3.  Traceroute Using Mixed Locators

   When either an IPv4 traceroute or IPv6 traceroute is originated and
   the ITR encapsulates it in the other address family header, one
   cannot get all 3 segments of the traceroute.  Segment 2 of the
   traceroute cannot be conveyed to the traceroute source, since it is
   expecting addresses from intermediate hops in the same address format
   for the type of traceroute it originated.  Therefore, in this case,
   segment 2 will make the tunnel look like one hop.  All the ITR has to
   do to make this work is to not copy the inner TTL to the outer,
   encapsulating header's TTL when a traceroute packet is encapsulated
   using an RLOC from a different address family.  This will cause no
   TTL decrement to 0 to occur in core routers between the ITR and ETR.

19.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for LISP are discussed in [RFC7833], in
   addition [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] provides authentication and integrity to
   LISP mappings.

   A complete LISP threat analysis can be found in [RFC7835], in what
   follows we provide a summary.

   The optional mechanisms of gleaning is offered to directly obtain a
   mapping from the LISP encapsulated packets.  Specifically, an xTR can
   learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and
   source EID of an encapsulated packet, and insert this new mapping
   into its map-cache.  An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID
   address to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID.  If
   the attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by
   redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim;s RLOC, potentially
   overloading it.

   The LISP Data-Plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC data-
   plane reachability, in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce-
   Present and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header can be
   manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack.  An off-path
   attacker able to spoof the RLOC of a victim's xTR can manipulate such
   mechanisms to declare a set of RLOCs unreachable.  This can be used

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   also, for instance, to declare only one RLOC reachable with the aim
   of overload it.

   Map-Versioning is a data-plane mechanism used to signal a peering xTR
   that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, so that the
   peering xTR uses LISP Control-Plane signaling message to retrieve a
   fresh mapping.  This can be used by an attacker to forge the map-
   versioning field of a LISP encapsulated header and force an excessive
   amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them.

   Most of the attack vectors can be mitigated with careful deployment
   and configuration, information learned opportunistically (such as LSB
   or gleaning) should be verified with other reachability mechanisms.
   In addition, systematic rate-limitation and filtering is an effective
   technique to mitigate attacks that aim to overload the control-plane.

20.  Network Management Considerations

   Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
   protocol suite can be operationally managed.  These mechanisms can be
   found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].

21.  IANA Considerations

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
   data-plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226].

21.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers

   The IANA registry has allocated UDP port numbers 4341 and 4342 for
   lisp-data and lisp-control operation, respectively.  IANA has updated
   the description for UDP ports 4341 and 4342 as follows:

       lisp-data      4341 udp    LISP Data Packets
       lisp-control   4342 udp    LISP Control Packets

22.  References

22.1.  Normative References

              Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
              Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-
              ddt-09 (work in progress), January 2017.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

              Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
              Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
              progress), April 2015.

              Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-05 (work in progress), May

              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12
              (work in progress), November 2016.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC2404]  Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within
              ESP and AH", RFC 2404, DOI 10.17487/RFC2404, November
              1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2404>.

   [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,

   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
              by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
              January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,

   [RFC4632]  Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
              (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
              Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.

   [RFC4868]  Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
              384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,

   [RFC5496]  Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
              Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5496, March 2009,

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,

   [RFC6115]  Li, T., Ed., "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture",
              RFC 6115, DOI 10.17487/RFC6115, February 2011,

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
              Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.

   [RFC6834]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6834, January 2013,

   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
              January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   [RFC7052]  Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,

   [RFC7214]  Andersson, L. and C. Pignataro, "Moving Generic Associated
              Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry",
              RFC 7214, DOI 10.17487/RFC7214, May 2014,

   [RFC7215]  Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
              Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
              Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.

   [RFC7833]  Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A
              RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier
              Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security
              Assertion Markup Language (SAML)", RFC 7833,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,

   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,

   [RFC8061]  Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,

22.2.  Informative References

   [AFN]      IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,

   [CHIAPPA]  Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: A Proposed",

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

              Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive
              RLOCs", draft-farinacci-lisp-predictive-rlocs-02 (work in
              progress), May 2017.

              Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
              Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-00 (work in progress),
              April 2017.

              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
              draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04 (work in
              progress), May 2017.

              Meyer, D. and D. Lewis, "Architectural Implications of
              Locator/ID Separation", draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-01
              (work in progress), January 2009.

              Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
              F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
              Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid-
              mobility-02 (work in progress), April 2017.

   [LISA96]   Lear, E., Tharp, D., Katinsky, J., and J. Coffin,
              "Renumbering: Threat or Menace?", Usenix Tenth System
              Administration Conference (LISA 96), October 1996.

              Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "OpenLISP
              Implementation Report", Work in Progress, July 2008.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
              2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,

   [RFC4107]  Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
              Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, DOI 10.17487/RFC4107,
              June 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4107>.

   [RFC4192]  Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
              Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4192, September 2005,

   [RFC4866]  Arkko, J., Vogt, C., and W. Haddad, "Enhanced Route
              Optimization for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4866,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4866, May 2007,

   [RFC4984]  Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
              from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
              RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
              February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.

   [RFC6518]  Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and Authentication for
              Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines", RFC 6518,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6518, February 2012,

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
              2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

   [RFC6832]  Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
              "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,

   [RFC6837]  Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
              Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,

   [RFC6935]  Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
              UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,

   [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,

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

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
   initial ideas for LISP.  His consultation continues to provide value
   to the LISP authors.

   A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
   providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
   of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
   architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
   practical and incremental transition for the Internet.

   The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people who have
   contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this proposal.
   They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel, Jason Schiller,
   Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay Gill, Geoff Huston,
   David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted Seely, Mark Townsley,
   Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter Lothberg, Dave Thaler,
   Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier Bonaventure, Luigi
   Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Terry
   Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas, Iljitsch van
   Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc Woolward, Damien
   Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap Lahiri, David
   Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver, Fred Templin,
   Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro Marques, Jari
   Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain, Xu Xiaohu,
   Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John Drake, Dimitri
   Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job Snijders, Vina
   Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White, Clarence Filsfils,
   Alia Atlas, Florin Coras and Alberto Rodriguez.

   This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
   An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working
   group document that became this RFC.

   The LISP working group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
   Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
   documents were being prepared for IESG last call, and for his
   meticulous reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
   last call documents progressing toward standards-track RFCs.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04

   o  Posted July 2017.

   o  Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.

   o  Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
      over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.

B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03

   o  Posted May 2017.

   o  Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
      Considerations section to RFC6833bis.

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02

   o  Posted April 2017.

   o  Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.

B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01

   o  Posted March 2017.

   o  Include references to new RFCs published.

   o  Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.

   o  Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.

   o  Remove references to "experimental".

B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00

   o  Posted December 2016.

   o  Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
      -rfc6830-00 individual submission.  No other changes made.

Authors' Addresses

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft                    LISP                         July 2017

   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134

   EMail: farinacci@gmail.com

   Vince Fuller
   Cisco Systems
   Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134

   EMail: vince.fuller@gmail.com

   Dave Meyer
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA

   EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net

   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA

   EMail: darlewis@cisco.com

   Albert Cabellos
   Campus Nord, C. Jordi Girona 1-3
   Barcelona, Catalunya

   EMail: acabello@ac.upc.edu

Farinacci, et al.       Expires January 18, 2018               [Page 53]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/