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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

LISP Working Group                                    A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                      A. Cabellos-Aparicio
Expires: June 11, 2017                 Technical University of Catalonia
                                                     M. Portoles-Comeras
                                                                M. Kowal
                                                                D. Lewis
                                                                F. Maino
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        December 8, 2016


  LISP-OAM (Operations, Administration and Management): Use cases and
                              requirements
                    draft-rodrigueznatal-lisp-oam-05

Abstract

   This document describes Operations Administration and Management
   (OAM) use-cases and the requirements that they have towards the LISP
   architecture.

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 June 11, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Definition of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  General LISP operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  MPTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  NFV/SFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   LISP with its location/ID split in place creates two separated
   namespaces, the RLOC space where the transit network elements are
   deployed and the EID space that applies to the end-hosts.  This
   inherently splits the network in an underlay, represented by the RLOC
   space, and an overlay, represented by the EID space.

   However, LISP introduces some drawbacks since relevant details of the
   underlay network are hidden to the overlay nodes (e.g, xTR).  With
   LISP, an overlay node can learn about the reachability of a path
   towards a locator and its liveness.  In terms of control, it can -by
   means of priorities and weights- load-balance traffic across
   different locators and, taking advantage of LISP-TE
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] and LISP-SR [I-D.brockners-lisp-sr], control
   how the traffic flows through the underlay topology.  However,
   overlay nodes lack of appropriate knowledge about the characteristics
   of the paths, such as loss, latency, delay, length in IP/AS hops,
   etc.  Furthermore, LISP nodes have little knowledge about the
   topological location of the RTRs as well as the characteristics of
   the underlay paths interconnecting them.

   The mechanisms specified by LISP to monitor and control the underlay
   may not be enough for the complex overlay services that are arising
   today.  Indeed, nowadays there are a plethora of services that
   require fine-grain control and real-time information of the network



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   state.  Such services could take advantage of the programmable
   overlay scheme that LISP introduces as long as the appropriate
   mechanisms to control and monitor the underlay are in place.

   LISP can leverage the mapping system to operate, administer, and
   manage the underlay-overlay relationship.  Network devices can push
   to the Mapping System information about the capabilities and state of
   the network in order to allow it to take the best network operation
   and management decisions.

   In this document we analyze the most common use-cases of overlay
   services and the requirements -from an abstract point of view- that
   they impose on the LISP architecture.

2.  Definition of terms

   o  OAM: The term OAM is used in this document as the acronym for
      Operation, Administration and Management.  It refers to the set of
      procedures and mechanism that ensure that a network deployment
      behaves as expected and adapts properly to new situations.

   o  Underlay: In this document, underlay is used to refer to the set
      of physical devices (i.e. hosts, routers, servers, etc) that
      support the networking operation in general and the LISP operation
      in particular.  It also refers to the address space on where those
      devices communicate.  In most cases the underlay is equivalent to
      the RLOC space, however it can also comprise information from
      external sources such traffic engineering databases, monitoring
      tools, etc.

   o  Overlay: The term Overlay is used here to denote the virtual
      network that sits on top of the underlay thanks to the LISP
      namespace split.  It also refers to the address space that the
      virtual network uses as well as to the devices that are deployed
      on that address space.  The overlay corresponds to the EID space.

   The rest of the terms are defined in their respective documents.  See
   the LISP specification [RFC6830] for most of the definitions,
   [RFC6832] for PxTR, [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf] for LCAF and
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for RTR.

3.  Use Cases

3.1.  General LISP operation

   The overlay introduced by LISP provides an abstract view of the
   network that simplifies the deployment and operation of the network
   and its services.  However this abstraction also hides the details of



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   the underneath physical topology.  While the overlay deployment can
   be fully defined at a logical level, the underlay is permanently
   subject to physical state changes that can affect the overall
   performance.  Any LISP deployment has to deal with both the overlay
   and underlay management and with underlay issues that can impact the
   overlay operation.  In this context, the overlay needs to be aware of
   the underlay state in order to adapt itself to the current network
   conditions.

   A LISP deployment where the overlay has detailed information of the
   underlay presents several advantages.  First it can help
   troubleshooting the deployment.  For instance, when a problem is
   detected, it is easy to know if it is due to misconfiguration on the
   LISP overlay, or rather from a physical problem on the underlay.
   Second, the underlay information can be used to influence policy
   decisions such as dynamically adapting the locators' priority and
   weight values based on the network state observed on the underlay.
   Finally, it can serve to automate the configuration of certain parts
   of the overlay deployment.

   This is the case when underlay topological information is used to
   automatically select on a xTR which PxTR to use.  Nowadays, PxTRs are
   generally manually configured, PITRs are provisioned with the EID
   prefixes they announce and the PETR to use is fixed on xTR boxes.
   With the proper overlay-underlay information exchange, these settings
   can be adapted over time.  For instance, the PITR that is announcing
   an EID prefix can change to a secondary PITR in order to reduce
   round-trip time (RTT) if the EID prefix moves to a different RLOC, or
   the PETR used by a certain xTR can be replaced with a new one when
   the PETR goes down or the underlay network conditions change (e.g.
   the delay increases or the throughput decreases).

   In order to provide the ability to operate with knowledge of the
   underlay, the LISP protocol could be extended to allow collection of
   underlay metrics that could then be pushed to the overlay.  In terms
   of collected metrics, there are a few that would improve LISP
   operations.  Some of these metrics could be extracted from the
   network state, by passive measurement or active probing, such as
   locator reachability, delay and throughput for a path, packet loss
   and MTU for a link, etc.  Those metrics can be directly applied to
   the LISP policies (e.g. announcing a locator as down if it is not
   reachable anymore), can incrementally modify the policies (e.g.
   changing dynamically LISP weight values based on the observed delay
   or throughput), or can be applied after a threshold has been reached
   (e.g. setting a locator as down if the packet loss goes above a
   certain value).  In addition to network state, it would be useful to
   keep track of LISP operation statistics, such as the size of the Map
   Cache or the last time a locator status changed.  This would give



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   more context of the underlay state and help the overlay to make
   better decisions.

3.2.  MPTCP

   Multipath TCP (MPTCP) [RFC6824] introduces several sub-flows in a
   single end-to-end TCP session while keeping a legacy TCP interface to
   the applications.  This provides both resilience and bandwidth
   aggregation to hosts with multiple interfaces.  MPTCP capabilities
   are negotiated between end-systems, which includes the capability of
   falling back to legacy TCP if negotiation is not possible.  If the
   other end supports MPTCP, the original TCP flow is split into several
   sub-flows which are then forwarded over the different available
   links.  [RFC6824] states that MPTCP "should achieve no worse
   throughput" and "must be no less resilient" than a single TCP
   connection, beyond that baseline the room for optimization of MPTCP
   is limited by the network conditions over the different paths used
   for the sub-flows.

   As a consequence of this, MPTCP is really sensitive to non-optimal
   conditions on different links.  Moreover, in an ideal deployment, the
   multiple sub-flows should follow disjoint paths to ensure best link
   backup scenario, and/or avoid bottle-neck paths to achieve increased
   throughput.  Another possible desirable scenario would be to forward
   a sub-flow, or a set of sub-flows, over a secured path to prevent a
   potential attacker from rebuilding the stream of data.  However,
   there is no way to ensure that the sub-flows will follow optimal
   paths beyond sending them through different interfaces from the end-
   point.  On the other hand, legacy hosts do not support MPTCP and, in
   that case, proxies should be provisioned for them.  All of these
   constraints make the overlay architecture proposed by LISP a suitable
   scenario for MPTCP deployments.  Assuming the appropriate LISP-OAM
   mechanisms in place, MPTCP traffic over LISP should work as follows.
   Consider that a MPTCP capable source sends traffic towards a non-
   MPTCP capable destination.  The LISP overlay has relevant information
   about the underlay and thus knows the best topology to deliver the
   traffic.  It enforces this topology on the underlay by defining the
   points the flows will go through and where the flows will just be
   forwarded or balanced over different links.  Since the destination is
   not MPTCP capable, all the flows will be eventually be gathered at a
   proxy that will collapse them into a single flow that is forwarded to
   the destination.  To handle the reply traffic, the single flow will
   first go through the proxy MPTCP and then the MPTCP subflows will be
   balanced again on the underlay via overlay management.

   With LISP in place, and the MPTCP sub-flows being routed on the
   overlay, it is possible to adapt the overlay topology to match one
   that offers better performance for the MPTCP session.  Optimal paths



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   may be enforced by means of using RTRs on the underlay.  MPTCP
   proxies can be deployed at xTRs or RTRs and the traffic then routed
   to/from them using LISP.  In order to compute this suitable topology,
   the Mapping System needs to be provided with several pieces of
   information regarding the network components themselves: which
   prefixes should use MPTCP for their communications, which among them
   are not MPTCP enabled and thus have to go through a proxy, where are
   these proxies located and which RTRs can be used to create the
   topology.  The Mapping System would need to know the state of the
   underlay network to create the best paths among the devices.  Some
   metrics that would be of interest to retrieve, in terms of MPTCP, are
   the bandwidth among the xTRs, the RTRs and the proxies, the latency
   observed on their connections, etc.  Finally, the Mapping System
   needs a way to tell the participants of the overlay what to do with
   the traffic, i.e. it needs to tell a MPTCP proxy which EID prefixes
   flows should be split or merged, it needs to indicate an RTR how to
   balance the different sub-flows it receives among the different paths
   that are available, etc.

3.3.  Multicast

   LISP defines several options to handle multicast operation between
   LISP sites.  [RFC6831] describes how LISP interacts with traditional
   multicast protocols, i.e. how multicast traffic generated and managed
   by multicast specific protocols are handled by LISP devices.  The
   multicast distribution tree creation and the multicast interaction
   with the network is leveraged on those legacy multicast protocols.
   "LISP Control-Plane Multicast Signaling"
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling] proposes an alternative method to
   support multicast operation among LISP sites fully supported by the
   LISP control-plane.  It covers the signaling to build the multicast
   distribution tree, however how it computes the tree topology is not
   within the scope of the document.  "Signal-Free LISP Multicast"
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast] proposes to connect
   multicast capable LISP sites through a non-multicast capable transit
   network.  The replication is done at the LISP edge devices and the
   packets are forwarded via unicast on the core network.  In that
   proposal, there is no multicast tree built on the transit network.
   Finally, "LISP Replication Engineering" [I-D.coras-lisp-re] describes
   a mechanism to build multicast distribution trees over a unicast-only
   transit network by means of using RTRs as multicast replication
   points.

   In general, multicast traffic management relies on building a
   multicast distribution tree where the multicast source is the root
   and the multicast receivers are the leaves.  The multicast traffic is
   forwarded according to that distribution tree and replicated when
   needed.  The topology of the tree impacts both the performance of the



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   multicast deployment and the quality of service of multicast traffic
   delivery.  In order to provide the best service, the multicast
   algorithm can use the overlay capabilities of LISP to build an
   optimized tree for the multicast participants based on their underlay
   topological location and the dynamic network conditions.

   LISP-OAM mechanisms can be applied to build and maintain an optimized
   multicast tree.  In a similar fashion to what is done in LISP-RE,
   underlay information can be pushed to the overlay management.  In
   LISP-RE, the RTRs involved in the multicast process register
   themselves in the Mapping System, letting it know that they may be
   used to build the distribution tree.  Beyond multicast-capable device
   discovery, a LISP-OAM architecture could potentially feed the Mapping
   System with underlay information relevant to the multicast tree
   computation, such as the replication capacity in the underlay devices
   or the latency among them.  Also, the multicast policies can be
   enforced in detail from the Mapping System, for instance setting up
   some nodes for only forwarding while keeping others for both
   forwarding and replication.

3.4.  NFV/SFC

   Network Function Virtualization (NFV) is a methodology that brings
   the advantages of traditional server virtualization to network
   functions.  Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) are no longer tied to
   the hardware and can be dynamically instantiated, moved, and modified
   on demand.  On the other hand, Service Function Chaining (SFC) is a
   proposal to provide a framework to manage and orchestrate chains of
   service functions that are applied to traffic across the network.  In
   both proposals, LISP can play a role, since the overlay it provides
   can be used to deploy or improve deployments of NFV and/or SFC.  An
   architecture of LISP for NFV is already described in
   [I-D.barkai-lisp-nfv].  The applicability of LISP to support SFC is
   discussed in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] and in [RFC7498]

   The network functions (virtualized or not), of a LISP-based NFV or
   SFC deployment, will be deployed on LISP devices on the underlay
   (either xTRs or RTRs) and the data traffic will be managed over the
   overlay.  The Mapping System will store the functions chains that
   should be applied to specific traffic and traffic engineering
   policies, such as the ones described in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te], will
   be used to ensure that traffic goes through the network functions.

   Deploying NFV or SFC solutions on top of LISP, in order to leverage
   its overlay, requires a bi-directional communication among the
   underlay devices and the overlay.  The overlay must discover the
   underlay devices that provide network functions and understand how
   they are connected.  It also needs to know the state of both the



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   underlay network and the underlay devices in terms of latency or
   bandwidth among the devices as well as current load per device.  In
   the NFV/SFC use-case, it is particularly important that the devices
   are able to announce the functions (virtual or not) that they
   provide, or that they are capable of providing.  On the other hand, a
   LISP-OAM architecture for NFV/SFC must be able to program the
   appropriate service chains in the Mapping System and to instantiate
   and manage on demand VNFs in the capable devices.

4.  Requirements

   The use-cases presented in Section 3 show the importance of including
   OAM mechanisms into the LISP protocol to make a better use of the
   overlay-underlay architecture.  Based on those use-cases, this
   section proposes a set of requirements that should be fulfilled by a
   LISP-OAM solution.  These requirements may be modified and/or
   extended in the future based on further use-cases discussion or
   experimental experience.  Note that each requirement is meant to
   cover a specific need, all of them are independent and can be
   individually added to LISP.  However, the more requirements
   addressed, the better the overlay can leverage the underlay.

   o  Device discovery: The overlay needs to know the LISP devices (ITR,
      ETR, PxTR and RTR) that are available and that can be used to
      handle traffic.  This is solved for ETRs by sending Map Register
      messages, that implicitly serve to announce the availability of
      the ETRs to the Mapping System.  A similar approach can be
      followed to automatically discover other LISP devices.

   o  Capability discovery: The overlay must be aware of the
      capabilities of the nodes participating in the overlay, although
      LISP functionality is assumed in all LISP devices, the OAM
      mechanisms need further information.  Based on the use-cases
      discussed in this document the capabilities to be announced by the
      devices are:

      *  Support for MPTCP flow balancing

      *  Network functions implemented on the device

      *  VNFs that the device can instantiate

      *  Capacity to replicate packets

      The capabilities should be encoded on a specific format (e.g a
      YANG [RFC6020] model in XML, a new LCAF, JSON [RFC7159] data, etc)
      and submitted to the overlay using LISP signaling (e.g. including




Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


      capabilities information on the Map Registers) or leveraging on
      other existing protocols.

   o  Underlay state access: The overlay needs as much underlay
      information as possible to make the best topology and policy
      decisions.  Underlay devices have to implement ways to collect,
      store and offer this information to the overlay.  According to the
      use-cases described in this document the metrics to be collected
      are:

      *  Latency

      *  Packet loss

      *  Path length (IP/AS hops)

      *  MTU

      *  LISP state (map-cache, locator status, etc)

      *  System load

      *  Replication capacity

      *  VNFs instantiated

      The metrics have to be encoded (e.g.  YANG, LCAF, JSON, etc) and
      communicated to the overlay.  The way to communicate them can be
      either a push mechanism (e.g.  Map Register) that would simplify
      operation but requires a central administration entry, or a pull
      approach (e.g Map Request) that would allow the overlay to
      retrieve only on-demand information.  The pull mechanism also
      serves as a way to specify which information is relevant for the
      overlay and to trigger metric collection if it was not already
      ongoing.  In any case, the underlay device may decide to limit the
      information that it shares with the overlay.

   o  Forwarding actions: Some use-cases require that the overlay
      defines actions on how to process packets.  According to the use-
      cases analyzed in this document the actions are:

      *  Forwarding: the basic forwarding action as defined in LISP.

      *  Replicate: Replicate an EID packet and forward it to a set of
         RLOCs.






Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


      *  Balance flows: Distribute EID flows across different RLOCs.
         The flows are identified by a source/destination tuple, a
         5-tuple, etc.

      *  Apply NF: Apply a (virtual or not) network function to the EID
         traffic.

      These actions can be implemented as extensions to the current
      specifications of LISP-TE or LISP-SR, leverage on reusing existing
      LCAF types or be defined by means of a new LCAF.  Some use-cases
      will narrow down actions via options, i.e. to define the algorithm
      to balance flows, the specific network function to be applied,
      etc.

   Some of the required LISP extensions to support OAM may be offloaded
   to existing solutions, for instance using configuration protocols
   such NETCONF [RFC6241] to get the PETR address on an xTR, build a
   YANG model to express devices capabilities or instantiate VNFs via
   NFV specific protocols.

5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Matthieu Coudron and Stefano Secci
   for their feedback and helpful suggestions.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

7.  Security Considerations

   In certain environments, multiple components of the LISP architecture
   may be managed in a distributed fashion (i.e., a Map Server, an ITR,
   and an ETR may be managed each individually by three separate
   organizations).  When including capabilities to allow for the
   discovery of devices and its capabilities, as well as the collection
   of metrics regarding the underlay and the local device itself, it
   should be taken into consideration that proper controls are put in
   place to enforce strict policies as to which devices can access what
   type(s) of information.

8.  Informative References

   [I-D.barkai-lisp-nfv]
              Barkai, S., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Maino,
              F., Ermagan, V., Rodriguez-Natal, A., and A. Cabellos-
              Aparicio, "LISP Based FlowMapping for Scaling NFV", draft-
              barkai-lisp-nfv-09 (work in progress), December 2016.



Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   [I-D.brockners-lisp-sr]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Maino, F., and D. Lewis,
              "LISP Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-brockners-
              lisp-sr-01 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.coras-lisp-re]
              Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
              Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
              Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-08 (work in progress),
              November 2015.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling]
              Farinacci, D. and M. Napierala, "LISP Control-Plane
              Multicast Signaling", draft-farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-06
              (work in progress), February 2015.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
              Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
              draft-farinacci-lisp-signal-free-multicast-04 (work in
              progress), December 2015.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]
              Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
              Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-11 (work
              in progress), September 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-lcaf]
              Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22 (work in
              progress), November 2016.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.






Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

   [RFC7498]  Quinn, P., Ed. and T. Nadeau, Ed., "Problem Statement for
              Service Function Chaining", RFC 7498,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7498, April 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7498>.

Authors' Addresses

   Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
   Cisco Systems
   California
   USA

   Email: albrodr2@cisco.com


   Albert Cabellos-Aparicio
   Technical University of Catalonia
   Barcelona
   Spain

   Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu










Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  LISP-OAM                   December 2016


   Marc Portoles-Comeras
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: mportole@cisco.com


   Michael Kowal
   Cisco Systems
   111 Wood Avenue South
   ISELIN, NJ
   USA

   Email: mikowal@cisco.com


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: darlewis@cisco.com


   Fabio Maino
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: fmaino@cisco.com

















Rodriguez-Natal, et al.   Expires June 11, 2017                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/