[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-lisp-ddt]



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         V. Fuller
Request for Comments: 8111                   VAF.NET Internet Consulting
Category: Experimental                                          D. Lewis
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               V. Ermagan
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                 A. Jain
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                              A. Smirnov
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                May 2017


   Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)

Abstract

   This document describes the Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
   Database Tree (LISP-DDT), a hierarchical distributed database that
   embodies the delegation of authority to provide mappings from LISP
   Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) to Routing Locators (RLOCs).  It is a
   statically defined distribution of the EID namespace among a set of
   LISP-speaking servers called "DDT nodes".  Each DDT node is
   configured as "authoritative" for one or more EID-prefixes, along
   with the set of RLOCs for Map-Servers or "child" DDT nodes to which
   more-specific EID-prefixes are delegated.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF
   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for
   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111.








Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 1]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 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 ....................................................4
   2. Requirements Language ...........................................5
   3. Definitions of Terms ............................................6
   4. Database Organization ...........................................8
      4.1. XEID-Prefixes ..............................................8
      4.2. Structure of the DDT Database ..............................8
      4.3. Configuring Prefix Delegation ..............................9
           4.3.1. The Root DDT Node ..................................10
   5. DDT Map-Request ................................................10
   6. The Map-Referral Message .......................................11
      6.1. Action Codes ..............................................11
      6.2. Referral Set ..............................................12
      6.3. "Incomplete" Flag .........................................12
      6.4. Map-Referral Message Format ...............................13
           6.4.1. Signature Section ..................................15
   7. DDT Network Elements and Their Operation .......................17
      7.1. DDT Node ..................................................17
           7.1.1. Matching of a Delegated Prefix (or Sub-prefix) .....17
           7.1.2. Missing Delegation from an Authoritative Prefix ....18
      7.2. DDT Map-Server ............................................18
      7.3. DDT Client ................................................18
           7.3.1. Queuing and Sending DDT Map-Requests ...............19
           7.3.2. Receiving and Following Referrals ..................20
           7.3.3. Handling Referral Errors ...........................22
           7.3.4. Referral Loop Detection ............................22









Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 2]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   8. Pseudocode and Decision Tree Diagrams ..........................23
      8.1. Map-Resolver Processing of ITR Map-Request ................23
           8.1.1. Pseudocode Summary .................................23
           8.1.2. Decision Tree Diagram ..............................24
      8.2. Map-Resolver Processing of Map-Referral Message ...........25
           8.2.1. Pseudocode Summary .................................25
           8.2.2. Decision Tree Diagram ..............................27
      8.3. DDT Node Processing of DDT Map-Request Message ............28
           8.3.1. Pseudocode Summary .................................28
           8.3.2. Decision Tree Diagram ..............................30
   9. Example Topology and Request/Referral Following ................31
      9.1. Lookup of 2001:db8:0103:1::1/128 ..........................33
      9.2. Lookup of 2001:db8:0501:8:4::1/128 ........................34
      9.3. Lookup of 2001:db8:0104:2::2/128 ..........................35
      9.4. Lookup of 2001:db8:0500:2:4::1/128 ........................36
      9.5. Lookup of 2001:db8:0500::1/128 (Nonexistent EID) ..........37
   10. Securing the Database and Message Exchanges ...................37
      10.1. XEID-Prefix Delegation ...................................38
      10.2. DDT Node Operation .......................................38
           10.2.1. DDT Public Key Revocation .........................38
      10.3. Map-Server Operation .....................................39
      10.4. Map-Resolver Operation ...................................39
   11. Open Issues and Considerations ................................40
   12. IANA Considerations ...........................................41
   13. Security Considerations .......................................41
   14. References ....................................................42
      14.1. Normative References .....................................42
      14.2. Informative References ...................................43
   Acknowledgments ...................................................44
   Authors' Addresses ................................................44





















Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 3]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


1.  Introduction

   The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830] specifies an
   architecture and mechanism for replacing the addresses currently used
   by IP with two separate namespaces:

   o  Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), used end to end for terminating
      transport-layer associations, and

   o  Routing Locators (RLOCs), which are bound to topological locations
      and are used for routing and forwarding through the Internet
      infrastructure.

   [RFC6833] specifies an interface between a database storing
   EID-to-RLOC mappings and LISP devices that need this information for
   packet forwarding.  The internal organization of such a database is
   beyond the scope of [RFC6833].  Multiple architectures of the
   database have been proposed, each having its advantages and
   disadvantages (see, for example, [RFC6836] and [RFC6837]).

   This document specifies an architecture for a database of LISP
   EID-to-RLOC mappings, with an emphasis on high scalability.  The
   LISP Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT) is a hierarchical distributed
   database that embodies the delegation of authority to provide
   mappings, i.e., its internal structure mirrors the hierarchical
   delegation of address space.  It also provides delegation information
   to Map-Resolvers, which use the information to locate EID-to-RLOC
   mappings.  A Map-Resolver that needs to locate a given mapping will
   follow a path through the tree-structured database and will contact,
   one after another, the DDT nodes along that path until it reaches the
   leaf DDT node(s) authoritative for the mapping it is seeking.

   LISP offers a general-purpose mechanism for mapping between EIDs and
   RLOCs.  In organizing a database of EID-to-RLOC mappings, this
   specification extends the definition of the EID numbering space by
   logically prepending and appending several fields for purposes of
   defining the database index key:

   o  Database-ID (DBID) (16 bits),

   o  Instance Identifier (IID) (32 bits),

   o  Address Family Identifier (AFI) (16 bits), and

   o  EID-prefix (variable, according to the AFI value).

   The resulting concatenation of these fields is termed an "Extended
   EID-prefix", or XEID-prefix.



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 4]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   LISP-DDT defines a new device type, the DDT node, that is configured
   as authoritative for one or more XEID-prefixes.  It is also
   configured with the set of more-specific sub-prefixes that are
   further delegated to other DDT nodes.  To delegate a sub-prefix, the
   "parent" DDT node is configured with the RLOCs of each child DDT node
   that is authoritative for the sub-prefix.  Each RLOC either points to
   a DDT Map-Server (MS) to which an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) has
   registered that sub-prefix or points to another DDT node in the
   database tree that further delegates the sub-prefix.  See [RFC6833]
   for a description of the functionality of the Map-Server and
   Map-Resolver.  Note that the target of a delegation must always be an
   RLOC (not an EID) to avoid any circular dependency.

   To provide a mechanism for traversing the database tree, LISP-DDT
   defines a new LISP message type, the Map-Referral, which is returned
   to the sender of a Map-Request when the receiving DDT node can refer
   the sender to another DDT node that has more detailed information.
   See Section 6 for the definition of the Map-Referral message.

   To find an EID-to-RLOC mapping, a LISP-DDT client, usually a DDT
   Map-Resolver, starts by sending an Encapsulated Map-Request to a
   preconfigured DDT node RLOC.  The DDT node responds with a
   Map-Referral message indicating that either (1) it will find the
   requested mapping to complete processing of the request or (2) the
   DDT client should contact another DDT node that has more-specific
   information; in the latter case, the DDT node then sends a new
   Encapsulated Map-Request to the next DDT node and the process repeats
   in an iterative manner.

   Conceptually, this is similar to the way that a client of the Domain
   Name System (DNS) follows referrals (DNS responses that contain only
   NS records) from a series of DNS servers until it finds an answer.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.











Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 5]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


3.  Definitions of Terms

   Extended EID (XEID):  a LISP EID extended with data uniquely
      identifying the address space to which it belongs (LISP IID,
      address family, etc.).  See Section 4.1 for a detailed description
      of XEID data.

   Extended EID-prefix (XEID-prefix):  a LISP EID-prefix prepended with
      XEID data.  An XEID-prefix is used as a key index into the DDT
      database.  XEID-prefixes are used to describe database
      organization and are not seen as a single entity in protocol
      messages, though messages contain individual fields constituting
      XEID-prefixes.

   DDT node:  a network infrastructure component responsible for
      specific XEID-prefix(es) and for the delegation of more-specific
      sub-prefixes to other DDT nodes.

   DDT client:  a network infrastructure component that sends DDT
      Map-Request messages and implements the iterative following of
      Map-Referral results.  Typically, a DDT client will be a
      Map-Resolver (as defined by [RFC6833]), but it is also possible
      for an Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) to implement DDT client
      functionality.

   DDT Map-Server:  a DDT node that also implements Map-Server
      functionality (forwarding Map-Requests and/or returning
      Map-Replies if offering a proxy Map-Reply service) for a subset of
      its delegated prefixes.  Map-Server functions, including proxying
      Map-Replies, are described in [RFC6833].

   DDT Map-Server peers:  a list of all DDT Map-Servers performing
      Map-Server functionality for the same prefix.  If peers are
      configured on a DDT Map-Server, then the latter will provide
      complete information about the prefix in its Map-Replies;
      otherwise, the Map-Server will mark the returned reply as
      potentially incomplete.

   DDT Map-Resolver:  a network infrastructure element that implements
      both DDT client functionality and Map-Resolver functionality as
      defined by [RFC6833].  A DDT Map-Resolver accepts Map-Requests
      from ITRs, sends DDT Map-Requests to DDT nodes, and implements the
      iterative following of Map-Referrals.  Note that Map-Resolvers
      do not respond to clients that sent Map-Requests; they only ensure
      that the Map-Request has been forwarded to a LISP device (ETR or
      proxy Map-Server) that will provide an authoritative response to
      the original requester.  A DDT Map-Resolver will typically




Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 6]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


      maintain a cache (termed the "referral cache") of previously
      received Map-Referral message results containing RLOCs for DDT
      nodes responsible for XEID-prefixes of interest.

   Encapsulated Map-Request:  a LISP Map-Request that is carried within
      an Encapsulated Control Message and that has an additional LISP
      header prepended to it.  Sent to UDP destination port 4342.  The
      "outer" addresses are globally routable IP addresses, also known
      as RLOCs.  Used by an ITR when sending a Map-Request to a
      Map-Resolver and by a Map-Server when forwarding a Map-Request to
      an ETR as documented in [RFC6833].

   DDT Map-Request:  an Encapsulated Map-Request sent by a DDT client to
      a DDT node.  The "DDT-originated" flag is set in the encapsulation
      header, indicating that the DDT node should return Map-Referral
      messages if the Map-Request EID matches a delegated XEID-prefix
      known to the DDT node.  Section 7.3.1 describes how DDT
      Map-Requests are sent.  Section 5 defines the position of the
      "DDT-originated" flag in the Encapsulated Control Message header.

   Authoritative XEID-prefix:  an XEID-prefix delegated to a DDT node
      and for which the DDT node may provide further delegations of
      more-specific sub-prefixes.

   Map-Referral:  a LISP message sent by a DDT node in response to a DDT
      Map-Request for an XEID that matches a configured XEID-prefix
      delegation.  A non-Negative Map-Referral includes a "referral" --
      a set of RLOCs for DDT nodes that have information about the
      more-specific XEID-prefix covering the requested XEID; a DDT
      client "follows the referral" by sending another DDT Map-Request
      to one of those RLOCs to obtain either an answer or another
      referral to DDT nodes responsible for an XEID-prefix that is even
      more specific.  See Sections 7.1 and 7.3.2 for details on the
      sending and processing of Map-Referral messages.

   Negative Map-Referral:  an answer from an authoritative DDT node that
      there is no mapping for the requested XEID.  A Negative
      Map-Referral is a Map-Referral sent in response to a DDT
      Map-Request that matches an authoritative XEID-prefix but for
      which there is no delegation configured (or no ETR registration,
      if sent by a DDT Map-Server).

   Pending Request List:  the set of outstanding requests for which a
      DDT Map-Resolver has received Encapsulated Map-Requests from its
      clients seeking EID-to-RLOC mapping for an XEID.  Each entry in
      the list contains additional state needed by the
      referral-following process, including the XEID, requester(s) of
      the XEID (typically one or more ITRs), saved information about the



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 7]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


      last referral received and followed (matching XEID-prefix, action
      code, RLOC set, index of the last RLOC queried in the RLOC set),
      and any LISP-Security (LISP-SEC) information [LISP-SEC] that was
      included in the DDT client Map-Request.  An entry in the list may
      be interchangeably termed a "pending request list entry" or simply
      a "pending request".

   For definitions of other terms -- notably Map-Request, Map-Reply,
   ITR, ETR, Map-Server, and Map-Resolver -- please consult the LISP
   specification [RFC6830] and the LISP Mapping Service specification
   [RFC6833].

4.  Database Organization

4.1.  XEID-Prefixes

   A DDT database is indexed by Extended EID-prefixes (XEID-prefixes).
   An XEID-prefix is a LISP EID-prefix, together with data extending it
   to uniquely identify the address space of the prefix.  An XEID-prefix
   is composed of four binary-encoded fields, ordered by significance:
   DBID (16 bits), IID (32 bits), AFI (16 bits), and EID-prefix
   (variable, according to the AFI value).  The fields are concatenated,
   with the most significant fields as listed above.

   The DBID is the LISP-DDT Database-ID, a 16-bit field provided to
   allow the definition of multiple databases.  Implementations that are
   compliant with this document must always set this field to 0.  Other
   values of the DBID are reserved for future use.

   The Instance ID (IID) is a 32-bit value describing the context of the
   EID-prefix, if the latter is intended for use in an environment where
   addresses may not be unique, such as in a Virtual Private Network
   where the [RFC1918] address space is used.  See Section 5.5 of
   [RFC6830] for more discussion of IIDs.  Encoding of the IID is
   specified by [RFC8060].

   The AFI is a 16-bit value defining the syntax of the EID-prefix.  AFI
   values are assigned by IANA [AFI].

4.2.  Structure of the DDT Database

   The LISP-DDT database for each DDT node is organized as a tree
   structure that is indexed by XEID-prefixes.  Leaves of the database
   tree describe the delegation of authority between DDT nodes (see
   Section 4.3 for details regarding delegation and information kept in
   the database entries).





Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 8]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   DDT Map-Requests sent by the DDT client to DDT nodes always contain
   specific values for the DBID, IID, and AFI; unspecified values or
   ranges of values are never used for any of these fields.  Thus, an
   XEID-prefix used as a key for searches in the database tree will have
   a length of at least 64 bits.

   A DDT node may, for example, be authoritative for a consecutive range
   of 3-tuples (DBID, IID, AFI) and all associated EID-prefixes, or only
   for a specific EID-prefix of a single 3-tuple.  Thus,
   XEID-prefixes/keys of the database tree leaves may have lengths less
   than, equal to, or more than 64 bits.

   It is important to note that LISP-DDT does not store actual
   EID-to-RLOC mappings; it is, rather, a distributed index that can be
   used to find the devices (ETRs that registered their EIDs with DDT
   Map-Servers) that can be queried with LISP to obtain those mappings.
   Changes to EID-to-RLOC mappings are made on the ETRs that define
   them, not to any DDT node configuration.  DDT node configuration
   changes are only required when branches of the database hierarchy are
   added, removed, or modified.

4.3.  Configuring Prefix Delegation

   Every DDT node is configured with one or more XEID-prefixes for which
   it is authoritative, along with a list of delegations of
   XEID-prefixes to other DDT nodes.  A DDT node is required to maintain
   a list of delegations for all sub-prefixes of its authoritative
   XEID-prefixes; it also may list "hints", which are prefixes that it
   knows about that belong to its parents, to the root, or to any other
   point in the XEID-prefix hierarchy.  A delegation (or hint) consists
   of an XEID-prefix, a set of RLOCs for DDT nodes that have more
   detailed knowledge of the XEID-prefix, and accompanying security
   information (for details regarding security information exchange and
   its use, see Section 10).  Those RLOCs are returned in Map-Referral
   messages when the DDT node receives a DDT Map-Request with an XEID
   that matches a delegation.  A DDT Map-Server will also have a set of
   sub-prefixes for which it accepts ETR mapping registrations and for
   which it will forward (or answer, if it provides a proxy Map-Reply
   service) Map-Requests.

   One or more XEID-prefixes for which a DDT node is authoritative, and
   the delegation of authority for sub-prefixes, are provided as part of
   the configuration of the DDT node.  Implementations will likely
   develop a language to express this prefix authority and delegation.
   Since DDT configuration is static (i.e., not exchanged between DDT
   nodes as part of the protocol itself), such language is
   implementation dependent and is outside the scope of this
   specification.



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 9]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


4.3.1.  The Root DDT Node

   The root DDT node is the logical "top" of the distributed database
   hierarchy.  It is authoritative for all XEID-prefixes -- that is, for
   all valid 3-tuples (DBID, IID, AFI) and their EID-prefixes.  A DDT
   Map-Request that matches no configured XEID-prefix will be referred
   to the root node (see Section 8 for a formal description of
   conditions where a DDT Map-Request is forwarded to the root node).
   The root node in a particular instantiation of LISP-DDT therefore
   MUST be configured, at a minimum, with delegations for all defined
   IIDs and AFIs.

5.  DDT Map-Request

   A DDT client (usually a Map-Resolver) uses LISP Encapsulated Control
   Messages (ECMs) to send Map-Request messages to a DDT node.  The
   format of the ECM is defined by [RFC6830].  This specification adds
   to the Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) header a new flag,
   "DDT-originated", as shown in the diagram and described below.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |                       IPv4 or IPv6 Header                     |
   OH  |                      (uses RLOC addresses)                    |
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = 4342        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   LH  |Type=8 |S|D|                Reserved                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |                       IPv4 or IPv6 Header                     |
   IH  |                  (uses RLOC or EID addresses)                 |
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = yyyy        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   LCM |                      LISP Control Message                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+








Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 10]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   D: The "DDT-originated" flag.  This flag is set by a DDT client to
      indicate that the receiver SHOULD return Map-Referral messages as
      appropriate.  The use of this flag is further described in
      Section 7.3.1.  This bit is allocated from LISP message header
      bits marked as "Reserved" in [RFC6830].

6.  The Map-Referral Message

   This specification defines a new LISP message called the Map-Referral
   message.  A Map-Referral message is sent by a DDT node to a
   DDT client in response to a DDT Map-Request message.  See Section 6.4
   for a detailed layout of the Map-Referral message fields.

   The message consists of an action code along with delegation
   information about the XEID-prefix that matches the requested XEID.

6.1.  Action Codes

   The action codes are as follows:

   NODE-REFERRAL (0):  indicates that the replying DDT node has
      delegated an XEID-prefix that matches the requested XEID to one or
      more other DDT nodes.  The Map-Referral message contains a
      "map-record" with additional information -- most significantly,
      the set of RLOCs to which the prefix has been delegated -- that is
      used by a DDT client to "follow" the referral.

   MS-REFERRAL (1):  indicates that the replying DDT node has delegated
      an XEID-prefix that matches the requested XEID to one or more DDT
      Map-Servers.  It contains the same additional information as a
      NODE-REFERRAL but is handled slightly differently by the receiving
      DDT client (see Section 7.3.2).

   MS-ACK (2):  indicates that the replying DDT Map-Server received a
      DDT Map-Request that matches an authoritative XEID-prefix for
      which it has one or more registered ETRs.  This means that the
      request has been forwarded to one of those ETRs to provide an
      answer to the querying ITR.

   MS-NOT-REGISTERED (3):  indicates that the replying DDT Map-Server
      received a Map-Request for one of its configured XEID-prefixes
      that has no ETRs registered.









Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 11]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   DELEGATION-HOLE (4):  indicates that the requested XEID matches a
      non-delegated sub-prefix of the XEID space.  This is a non-LISP
      "hole", which has not been delegated to any DDT Map-Server or ETR.
      See Section 7.1.2 for details.  Also sent by a DDT Map-Server with
      authoritative configuration covering the requested EID but for
      which no specific site ETR is configured.

   NOT-AUTHORITATIVE (5):  indicates that the replying DDT node received
      a Map-Request for an XEID for which it is not authoritative and
      has no configured matching hint referrals.  This can occur if a
      cached referral has become invalid due to a change in the database
      hierarchy.  However, if such a DDT node has a "hint" delegation
      covering the requested EID, it MAY choose to return NODE-REFERRAL
      or MS-REFERRAL as appropriate.  When returning action code
      NOT-AUTHORITATIVE, the DDT node MUST provide the EID-prefix
      received in the request and the TTL MUST be set to 0.

6.2.  Referral Set

   For "positive" action codes (NODE-REFERRAL, MS-REFERRAL, MS-ACK), a
   DDT node MUST include in the Map-Referral message a list of RLOCs for
   DDT nodes that are authoritative for the XEID-prefix being returned;
   a DDT client uses this information to contact one of those DDT nodes
   as it "follows" a referral.

6.3.  "Incomplete" Flag

   A DDT node sets the "Incomplete" flag in a Map-Referral message if
   the Referral Set is incomplete; this is intended to prevent a DDT
   client from caching a referral with incomplete information.  A DDT
   node MUST set the "Incomplete" flag in the following cases:

   o  If it is setting action code MS-ACK or MS-NOT-REGISTERED but the
      matching XEID-prefix is not flagged as "complete" in the
      configuration.  The XEID-prefix configuration on the DDT
      Map-Server SHOULD be marked as "complete" when the configuration
      of the XEID-prefix lists all "peer" DDT nodes that are also
      authoritative for the same XEID-prefix or when it is known that a
      local DDT node is the only authoritative node for the XEID-prefix.

   o  If it is setting action code NOT-AUTHORITATIVE.










Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 12]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


6.4.  Map-Referral Message 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Type=6 |                Reserved               | Record Count  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         Nonce . . .                           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         . . . Nonce                           |
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                         Record TTL                            |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   R   | Referral Count| EID mask-len  | ACT |A|I|     Reserved        |
   e   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   c   |SigCnt |   Map Version Number  |            EID-AFI            |
   o   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   r   |                          EID-prefix ...                       |
   d   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  /|    Priority   |    Weight     |  M Priority   |   M Weight    |
   | R +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | e |       Unused Flags      |L|p|R|            Loc-AFI            |
   | f +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  \|                             Locator ...                       |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   ~                          Sig section                          ~
   +-> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type:  Type value 6 was reserved for future use in [RFC6830].  This
      document allocates this value to identify Map-Referral messages.

   ACT:  The ACT (Action) field of the mapping Record in a Map-Referral
      message encodes one of the following six action types:
      NODE-REFERRAL, MS-REFERRAL, MS-ACK, MS-NOT-REGISTERED,
      DELEGATION-HOLE, or NOT-AUTHORITATIVE.  See Section 6.1 for
      descriptions of these action types.















Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 13]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   Incomplete:  The "I" bit indicates that a DDT node's Referral Set of
      locators is incomplete and the receiver of this message SHOULD NOT
      cache the referral.  A DDT sets the "Incomplete" flag, the TTL,
      and the Action field as follows:

   -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Type (Action field)          Incomplete Referral Set   TTL values
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
     0    NODE-REFERRAL              No         Yes           1440

     1    MS-REFERRAL                No         Yes           1440

     2    MS-ACK                     *          *             1440

     3    MS-NOT-REGISTERED          *          *             1

     4    DELEGATION-HOLE            No         No            15

     5    NOT-AUTHORITATIVE          Yes        No            0
   -------------------------------------------------------------------

   *: The "Incomplete" flag setting for the Map-Server-originated
      referral of MS-ACK and MS-NOT-REGISTERED types depends on whether
      the Map-Server has the full peer Map-Server configuration for the
      same prefix and has encoded the information in the mapping Record.
      The "Incomplete" bit is not set when the Map-Server has encoded
      the information; this means that the Referral Set includes all the
      RLOCs of all Map-Servers that serve the prefix.  It MUST be set
      when the configuration of the Map-Server does not flag the
      matching prefix as configured with the complete information about
      "peer" Map-Servers or when the Map-Server does not return all
      configured locators.

   Referral Count:  Number of RLOCs in the current Referral Set.  This
      number is equal to the number of "Ref" sections in the message (as
      shown in the diagram above).

   SigCnt:  Indicates the number of signatures (Signature section)
      present in the Record.  If SigCnt is larger than 0, the signature
      information captured in a Signature section as described in
      Section 6.4.1 will be appended to the end of the Record.  The
      number of Signature sections at the end of the Record MUST match
      the SigCnt.  Note that bits occupied by SigCnt were marked as
      "Reserved" in Records embedded into messages defined by [RFC6830]
      and were required to be set to zero.






Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 14]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   Loc-AFI:  AFI of the Locator field.  If the AFI value is different
      from the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) AFI, security keys
      are not included in the Record.  If the AFI value is equal to the
      LCAF AFI, the contents of the LCAF depend on the Type field of the
      LCAF.  LCAF Type 11 is used to store security material along with
      the AFI of the locator.  DDT nodes and DDT Map-Servers can use
      this LCAF Type to include public keys associated with their child
      DDT nodes for an XEID-prefix Map-Referral Record.  LCAF Types and
      formats are defined in [RFC8060].

   Locator:  RLOC of a DDT node to which the DDT client is being
      referred.  This is a variable-length field; its length is
      determined by the Loc-AFI setting.

   All other fields and their descriptions are equivalent to those in
   the Map-Reply message, as defined in LISP [RFC6830].  Note, though,
   that the set of RLOCs correspond to the DDT node to be queried as a
   result of the referral and not to the RLOCs for an actual EID-to-RLOC
   mapping.

6.4.1.  Signature Section

   SigCnt counts the number of signature sections that appear at the end
   of the Record.  The format of the signature section is described
   below.

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /|                      Original Record TTL                      |
     / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    /  |                      Signature Expiration                     |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   s   |                      Signature Inception                      |
   i   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   g   |            Key Tag            |           Sig Length          |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \   | Sig-Algorithm |    Reserved   |            Reserved           |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ ~                             Signature                         ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Original Record TTL:  The original Record TTL for this Record that
      is covered by the signature.  The Record TTL value is specified
      in minutes.








Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 15]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   Signature Expiration and Signature Inception:  Specify the validity
      period for the signature.  The signature MUST NOT be used for
      authentication prior to the inception date and MUST NOT be used
      for authentication after the expiration date.  Each field
      specifies a date and time in the form of a 32-bit unsigned number
      of seconds elapsed since 1 January 1970 00:00:00 UTC, ignoring
      leap seconds, in network byte order.

   Key Tag:  An identifier to specify which key is used for this
      signature if more than one valid key exists for the signing
      DDT node.

   Sig Length:  The length of the Signature field in bytes.

   Sig-Algorithm:  The identifier of the cryptographic algorithm used
      for the signature.  Sig-Algorithm values defined in this
      specification are listed in Table 1.  Implementations conforming
      to this specification MUST implement at least RSA-SHA256 for DDT
      signing.  Sig-Algorithm type 1 (RSA-SHA1) is deprecated and
      SHOULD NOT be used.

          +---------------+------------+-----------+------------+
          | Sig-Algorithm |    Name    | Reference |   Notes    |
          +---------------+------------+-----------+------------+
          |       1       |  RSA-SHA1  | [RFC8017] | DEPRECATED |
          |               |            |           |            |
          |       2       | RSA-SHA256 | [RFC8017] | MANDATORY  |
          +---------------+------------+-----------+------------+

                       Table 1: Sig-Algorithm Values

   Reserved:  MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on
      receipt.

   Signature:  Contains the cryptographic signature that covers the
      entire Map-Referral Record to which this signature belongs.  For
      the purpose of computing the signature, the Record TTL
      (Section 6.4) value is set to the value of Original Record TTL and
      the Signature field is filled with zeros.












Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 16]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


7.  DDT Network Elements and Their Operation

   As described above, LISP-DDT introduces a new network element -- the
   DDT node -- and extends the functionality of Map-Servers and
   Map-Resolvers to send and receive Map-Referral messages.  The
   operation of each of these devices is described below.

7.1.  DDT Node

   When a DDT node receives a DDT Map-Request, it compares the requested
   XEID against its list of XEID-prefix delegations and its list of
   authoritative XEID-prefixes, and proceeds as follows:

7.1.1.  Matching of a Delegated Prefix (or Sub-prefix)

   If the requested XEID matches one of the DDT node's delegated
   prefixes, then a Map-Referral message is returned with the matching
   more-specific XEID-prefix and the set of RLOCs for the referral
   target DDT nodes, including associated security information (see
   Section 10 for details on security).  If at least one DDT node of the
   delegation is known to be a DDT Map-Server, then the Map-Referral
   message SHOULD be sent with action code MS-REFERRAL to indicate to
   the receiver that LISP-SEC information (if saved in the pending
   request) SHOULD be included in the next DDT Map-Request; otherwise,
   the action code NODE-REFERRAL SHOULD be used.

   Note that a matched delegation does not have to be for a sub-prefix
   of an authoritative prefix; in addition to being configured to
   delegate sub-prefixes of an authoritative prefix, a DDT node may also
   be configured with other XEID-prefixes for which it can provide
   referrals to DDT nodes anywhere in the database hierarchy.  This
   capability to define "shortcut hints" is never required to be
   configured, but it may be a useful heuristic for reducing the number
   of iterations needed to find an EID, particularly for private network
   deployments.

   Referral hints, if used properly, may reduce the number of referrals
   a DDT client needs to follow to locate a DDT Map-Server authoritative
   for the XEID-prefix being resolved.  On the other hand, the incorrect
   use of hints may create circular dependencies (or "referral loops")
   between DDT nodes.  A DDT client MUST be prepared to handle such
   circular referrals.  See Section 7.3.4 for a discussion of referral
   loops and measures that the DDT client must implement in order to
   detect circular referrals and prevent infinite looping.

   Another danger related to the use of hints is when a DDT deployment
   spans multiple administrative domains (i.e., different authorities
   manage DDT nodes in the same DDT database).  In this case, an



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 17]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   operator managing a DDT node may not be aware of the fact that the
   node is being referred to by hints.  Locator addresses in hints may
   become stale when referred DDT nodes are taken out of service or
   change their locator addresses.

7.1.2.  Missing Delegation from an Authoritative Prefix

   If the requested XEID did not match a configured delegation but does
   match an authoritative XEID-prefix, then the DDT node MUST return a
   Negative Map-Referral that uses the least-specific XEID-prefix that
   does not match any XEID-prefix delegated by the DDT node.  The action
   code is set to DELEGATION-HOLE; this indicates that the XEID is not a
   LISP destination.

   If the requested XEID did not match either a configured delegation,
   an authoritative XEID-prefix, or a hint, then a Negative Map-Referral
   with action code NOT-AUTHORITATIVE MUST be returned.

7.2.  DDT Map-Server

   When a DDT Map-Server receives a DDT Map-Request, its operation is
   similar to that of a DDT node, with additional processing as follows:

   o  If the requested XEID matches a registered XEID-prefix, then the
      Map-Request is forwarded to one of the destination ETR RLOCs (or
      the Map-Server sends a Map-Reply, if it is providing a proxy
      Map-Reply service), and a Map-Referral with action code MS-ACK
      MUST be returned to the sender of the DDT Map-Request.

   o  If the requested XEID matches a configured XEID-prefix for which
      no ETR registration has been received, then a Negative
      Map-Referral with action code MS-NOT-REGISTERED MUST be returned
      to the sender of the DDT Map-Request.

7.3.  DDT Client

   A DDT client queries one or more DDT nodes and uses an iterative
   process of following returned referrals until it receives one with
   action code MS-ACK (or an error indication).  MS-ACK indicates that
   the Map-Request has been sent to a Map-Server that will forward it to
   an ETR that, in turn, will provide a Map-Reply to the locator address
   in the Map-Request.

   DDT client functionality will typically be implemented by DDT
   Map-Resolvers.  Just as would any other Map-Resolver, a DDT
   Map-Resolver accepts Map-Requests from its clients (typically ITRs)
   and ensures that those Map-Requests are forwarded to the correct ETR,
   which generates Map-Replies.  However, unlike a Map-Resolver that



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 18]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   uses the LISP Alternative Logical Topology (LISP+ALT) mapping system
   [RFC6836], a DDT Map-Resolver implements DDT client functionality to
   find the correct ETR to answer a Map-Request; this requires a DDT
   Map-Resolver to maintain additional state: a Map-Referral cache and a
   pending request list of XEIDs that are going through the iterative
   referral process.

   DDT client functionality may be implemented on ITRs.  In this case,
   the DDT client will not receive a Map-Request from another network
   element; instead, equivalent information will be provided to the DDT
   client via a programming interface.

7.3.1.  Queuing and Sending DDT Map-Requests

   When a DDT client receives a request to resolve an XEID (in the case
   of a DDT Map-Resolver, this will be in the form of a received
   Encapsulated Map-Request), it first performs a longest-match search
   for the XEID in its referral cache.  If no match is found or if a
   negative cache entry is found, then the destination is not in the
   database; a Negative Map-Reply MUST be returned, and no further
   processing is performed by the DDT client.

   If a match is found, the DDT client creates a pending request list
   entry for the XEID and saves the original request (in the case of a
   DDT Map-Resolver, this will be the original Map-Request minus the
   encapsulation header) along with other information needed to track
   progress through the iterative referral process; the "referral
   XEID-prefix" is also initialized to indicate that no referral has yet
   been received.  The DDT client then creates a DDT Map-Request (which
   is an Encapsulated Map-Request with the "DDT-originated" flag set in
   the message header) for the XEID but without any authentication data
   that may have been included in the original request.  It sends the
   DDT Map-Request to one of the RLOCs in the chosen referral cache
   entry.  The referral cache is initially populated with one or more
   statically configured entries; additional entries are added when
   referrals are followed, as described below.  A DDT client is not
   absolutely required to cache referrals, but doing so will decrease
   latency and reduce lookup delays.

   Note that in normal use on the public Internet, the statically
   configured initial referral cache for a DDT client should include a
   "default" entry with RLOCs for either the root DDT node or one or
   more DDT nodes that contain hints for the root DDT node.  If a DDT
   client does not have such a configuration, it will return a Negative
   Map-Reply if it receives a query for an EID outside the subset of the
   mapping database known to it.  While this may be desirable on private
   network deployments or during early transition to LISP when few sites
   are using it, this behavior is not appropriate when LISP is in



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 19]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   general use on the Internet.  If DDT message exchanges are
   authenticated as described in Section 10, then the DDT client MUST
   also be configured with public keys of DDT nodes pointed to by the
   "default" cache entry.  In this case, the "default" entry will
   typically be for the root DDT node.

7.3.2.  Receiving and Following Referrals

   After sending a DDT Map-Request, a DDT client expects to receive a
   Map-Referral response.  If none occurs within the timeout period, the
   DDT client retransmits the request, sending it to the next RLOC in
   the referral cache entry if one is available.  If all RLOCs have been
   tried and the maximum number of retransmissions has occurred for
   each, then the pending request list entry is dequeued and discarded.
   In this case, the DDT client returns no response to the sender of the
   original request.

   A DDT client processes a received Map-Referral message according to
   each action code:

   NODE-REFERRAL:  The DDT client checks for a possible referral loop as
      described in Section 7.3.4.  If no loop is found, the DDT client
      saves the prefix returned in the Map-Referral message in the
      referral cache, updates the saved prefix and saved RLOCs in the
      pending request list entry, and follows the referral by sending a
      new DDT Map-Request to one of the DDT node RLOCs listed in the
      Referral Set; security information saved with the original
      Map-Request SHOULD NOT be included.

   MS-REFERRAL:  The DDT client processes an MS-REFERRAL in the same
      manner as a NODE-REFERRAL, except that security information saved
      with the original Map-Request MUST be included in the new
      Map-Request sent to a Map-Server (see Section 10 for details on
      security).

   MS-ACK:  An MS-ACK is returned by a DDT Map-Server to indicate that
      it has one or more registered ETRs that can answer a Map-Request
      for the XEID and the request has been forwarded to one of them
      (or, if the Map-Server is providing a proxy service for the
      prefix, then a reply has been sent to the querying ITR).  If the
      pending request did not include saved LISP-SEC information or if
      that information was already included in the previous DDT
      Map-Request (sent by the DDT client in response to either an
      MS-REFERRAL or a previous MS-ACK referral), then the pending
      request for the XEID is complete; processing of the request stops,
      and all request state can be discarded.  Otherwise, LISP-SEC
      information is required and has not yet been sent to the
      authoritative DDT Map-Server; the DDT client MUST resend the DDT



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 20]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


      Map-Request with LISP-SEC information included, and the pending
      request queue entry remains until another Map-Referral with action
      code MS-ACK is received.  If the "Incomplete" flag is not set, the
      prefix is saved in the referral cache.

   MS-NOT-REGISTERED:  The DDT Map-Server queried could not process the
      request because it did not have any ETRs registered for a
      matching, authoritative XEID-prefix.  If the DDT client has not
      yet tried all of the RLOCs saved with the pending request, then it
      sends a Map-Request to the next RLOC in that list.  If all RLOCs
      have been tried, then the destination XEID is not registered and
      is unreachable.  The DDT client MUST return a Negative Map-Reply
      to the requester (or, in the case of a DDT Map-Resolver, to the
      sender of the original Map-Request).  This Map-Reply contains the
      least-specific XEID-prefix in the range for which this DDT
      Map-Server is authoritative and in which no registrations exist.
      The TTL value of the Negative Map-Reply SHOULD be set to 1 minute.
      A negative referral cache entry is created for the prefix (whose
      TTL also SHOULD be set to 1 minute), and processing of the request
      stops.

   DELEGATION-HOLE:  The DDT Map-Server queried did not have an
      XEID-prefix defined that matched the requested XEID, so the XEID
      does not exist in the mapping database.  The DDT client MUST
      return a Negative Map-Reply to the requester (or, in the case of a
      DDT Map-Resolver, to the sender of the original Map-Request); this
      Map-Reply SHOULD indicate the least-specific XEID-prefix matching
      the requested XEID for which no delegations exist and SHOULD have
      a TTL value of 15 minutes.  A negative referral cache entry is
      created for the prefix (which also SHOULD have a TTL of
      15 minutes), and processing of the pending request stops.

   NOT-AUTHORITATIVE:  The DDT Map-Server queried is not authoritative
      for the requested XEID.  This can occur if a cached referral has
      become invalid due to a change in the database hierarchy.  If the
      DDT client receiving this message can determine that it is using
      old cached information, it MAY choose to delete that cached
      information and retry the original Map-Request, starting from its
      "root" cache entry.  If this action code is received in response
      to a query that did not use cached referral information, then it
      indicates a database synchronization problem or configuration
      error.  The pending request is silently discarded; i.e., all state
      for the request that caused this answer is removed, and no answer
      is returned to the original requester.







Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 21]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


7.3.3.  Handling Referral Errors

   Other states are possible, such as a misconfigured DDT node (acting
   as a proxy Map-Server, for example) returning a Map-Reply to the DDT
   client; they should be considered errors and logged as such.  It is
   not clear exactly what else the DDT client should do in such cases;
   one possibility is to remove the pending request list entry and send
   a Negative Map-Reply to the requester (or, in the case of a DDT
   Map-Resolver, to the sender of the original Map-Request).
   Alternatively, if a DDT client detects unexpected behavior by a DDT
   node, it could mark that node as unusable in its referral cache and
   update the pending request to try a different DDT node if more than
   one is listed in the referral cache.  In any case, any prefix
   contained in a Map-Referral message that causes a referral error
   (including a referral loop) is not saved in the DDT client referral
   cache.

7.3.4.  Referral Loop Detection

   In response to a Map-Referral message with action code NODE-REFERRAL
   or MS-REFERRAL, a DDT client is directed to query a new set of DDT
   node RLOCs that are expected to have more-specific XEID-prefix
   information for the requested XEID.  To prevent a possible "iteration
   loop" (following referrals back and forth among a set of DDT nodes
   without ever finding an answer), a DDT client saves the last received
   referral XEID-prefix for each pending request and checks to see if a
   newly received NODE-REFERRAL or MS-REFERRAL message contains a
   more-specific referral XEID-prefix; an exact or less-specific match
   of the saved XEID-prefix indicates a referral loop.  If a loop is
   detected, the DDT Map-Resolver handles the request as described in
   Section 7.3.3.  Otherwise, the DDT client saves the most recently
   received referral XEID-prefix with the pending request when it
   follows the referral.

   As an extra measure to prevent referral loops, it is probably also
   wise to limit the total number of referrals for any request to some
   reasonable number; the exact value of that number will be determined
   during experimental deployment of LISP-DDT but is bounded by the
   maximum length of the XEID.

   Note that when a DDT client adds an entry to its lookup queue and
   sends an initial Map-Request for an XEID, the queue entry has no
   previous referral XEID-prefix; this means that the first DDT node
   contacted by a DDT Map-Resolver may provide a referral to anywhere in
   the DDT hierarchy.  This, in turn, allows a DDT client to use
   essentially any DDT node RLOCs for its initial cache entries and





Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 22]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   depend on the initial referral to provide a good starting point for
   Map-Requests; there is no need to configure the same set of root DDT
   nodes on all DDT clients.

8.  Pseudocode and Decision Tree Diagrams

   To illustrate the DDT algorithms described above and to aid in
   implementation, each of the major DDT Map-Server and DDT Map-Resolver
   functions are described below, first using simple "pseudocode" and
   then in the form of a decision tree.

8.1.  Map-Resolver Processing of ITR Map-Request

8.1.1.  Pseudocode Summary

    if ( request pending, i.e., (ITR,EID) of request same ) {
        replace old request with new, & use new request nonce
         for future requests
    } else if ( no match in refcache ) {
        return Negative Map-Reply to ITR
    } else if ( match type DELEGATION-HOLE ) {
        return Negative Map-Reply to ITR
    } else if ( match type MS-ACK ) {
        fwd DDT Map-Request to Map-Server
    } else {
        store & fwd DDT Map-Request w/o security material
         to node delegation
    }























Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 23]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


8.1.2.  Decision Tree Diagram

   +------------+
   | Is request | Yes
   |  pending?  |----> Replace old request with
   |            |      new nonce for future requests
   +------------+
         |
         |No
         |
         V
   +------------+
   | Match in   | No
   | referral   |----> Send Negative Map-Reply
   | cache?     |      (not a likely event, as root or
   +------------+       hint configured on every Map-Resolver)
         |
         |Yes
         |
         V
   +-------------+
   | Match type  | Yes
   | DELEGATION- |----> Send Negative Map-Reply
   | HOLE?       |
   +-------------+
         |
         |No
         |
         V
   +------------+
   | Match type | Yes
   | MS-ACK?    |----> Forward DDT Map-Request to Map-Server
   |            |
   +------------+
         |
         |No
         |
         V
   Store original request & send DDT Map-Request w/o security material
    to DDT node delegation











Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 24]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


8.2.  Map-Resolver Processing of Map-Referral Message

8.2.1.  Pseudocode Summary

      if ( authentication signature validation failed ) {
          silently drop
      }

      if ( no request pending matched by referral nonce ) {
          silently drop
      }

      if ( pfx in referral less specific than last referral used ) {
          if ( gone through root ) {
              silently drop
          } else {
              send request to root
          }
      }

      switch (map_referral_type) {

          case NOT_AUTHORITATIVE:
              if ( gone through root ) {
                  return Negative Map-Reply to ITR
              } else {
                  send request to root
              }

          case DELEGATION_HOLE:
              cache & send Negative Map-Reply to ITR

          case MS_REFERRAL:
              if ( referral equal to last used ) {
                  if ( gone through root ) {
                      return Negative Map-Reply to ITR
                  } else {
                      send request to root
                  }
              } else {
                  cache
                  follow the referral; include security material
              }








Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 25]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


          case NODE_REFERRAL:
              if ( referral equal to last used ) {
                  if ( gone through root ) {
                      return Negative Map-Reply to ITR
                  } else {
                      send request to root
                  }
              } else {
                  cache
                  follow the referral; strip security material
              }

          case MS_ACK:
              if ( security material stripped ) {
                  resend request with security material
                  if { !incomplete } {
                      cache
                  }
              }

          case MS_NOT_REGISTERED:
              if { all Map-Server delegations not tried } {
                  follow delegations not tried
                  if ( !incomplete ) {
                      cache
                  }
              } else {
                  send Negative Map-Reply to ITR
                  if { !incomplete } {
                      cache
                  }
              }

          case DEFAULT:
              drop
          }
      }














Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 26]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


8.2.2.  Decision Tree Diagram

                          +----------------+
                          | Auth signature | No
                          |     valid?     |----> Silently drop
                          +----------------+
                                  | Yes
                                  V
                            +------------+
                            | Is request | No
                            |  pending?  |----> Silently drop
                            +------------+
                                  | Yes
                                  V
                    +------------------------------+ Yes
                    | Pfx less specific than last? |----> Silently drop
                    +------------------------------+
                                  |No
                                  V
       +---------------------------------------------------+
       |             What is Map-Referral type?            |--Unknown-+
       +---------------------------------------------------+          |
         |        |         |       |         |          |            V
         |        |         |       |         |       DEL_HOLE      Drop
         |        |         |       |      MS_ACK        |
         |        |         |       |         |          V
         |        |     MS_REF   NODE_REF     |      Cache & return
         |        |         |       |         V      Negative Map-Reply
         |        |         |       |    +---------+
         |   NOT_AUTH       |       |    | Was sec | Yes
         |        |         |       |    | material|
         |        |         |       |    |stripped?|----> Done
         |        |         V       V    +---------+
         |        |       +------------+      | No
         |        |   Yes | Pfx equal  |      V
MS_NOT_REGISTERED |   +---| to last    |  +------------+
         |        |   |   | used?      |  |"Incomplete"| Yes
         |        |   |   +------------+  | bit set?   |---> Resend DDT
         |        V   V          |No      +------------+     request w/
         |  +------------+       |               |No         security
         |  |  Gone      |       V               |           material
         |  |  through   |   Cache & follow      V
         |  |  root?     |   the referral     Cache & resend DDT
         |  +------------+                    request with
         |    |No      |Yes                   security material
         |    |        |
         |    V        V




Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 27]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


         |  Send req   Send Negative Map-Reply
         |  to root
         V
 +-----------+ Yes                       +------------+ Yes
 | Other MS  |---Follow other MS-------->|"Incomplete"|----> Don't cache
 | not tried?|                           | bit set?   |
 |           |--Send Negative Map-Reply->|            |----> Cache
 +-----------+ No                        +------------+ No

8.3.  DDT Node Processing of DDT Map-Request Message

8.3.1.  Pseudocode Summary

  if ( I am not authoritative ) {
      send Map-Referral NOT_AUTHORITATIVE with
       "Incomplete" bit set and TTL 0
  } else if ( delegation exists ) {
      if ( delegated Map-Servers ) {
          send Map-Referral MS_REFERRAL with
            TTL 'Default_DdtNode_Ttl'
      } else {
          send Map-Referral NODE_REFERRAL with
            TTL 'Default_DdtNode_Ttl'
      }
  } else {
      if ( EID in site) {
          if ( site registered ) {
              forward Map-Request to ETR
              if ( Map-Server peers configured ) {
                  send Map-Referral MS_ACK with
                   TTL 'Default_Registered_Ttl'
              } else {
                  send Map-Referral MS_ACK with
                   TTL 'Default_Registered_Ttl' and "Incomplete" bit set
              }
          } else {
              if ( Map-Server peers configured ) {
                  send Map-Referral MS_NOT_REGISTERED with
                   TTL 'Default_Configured_Not_Registered_Ttl'
              } else {
                  send Map-Referral MS_NOT_REGISTERED with
                   TTL 'Default_Configured_Not_Registered_Ttl'
                   and "Incomplete" bit set
              }
          }






Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 28]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


      } else {
          send Map-Referral DELEGATION_HOLE with
           TTL 'Default_Negative_Referral_Ttl'
      }
  }

   where architectural constants for TTL are set as follows:

   Default_DdtNode_Ttl                      1440 minutes
   Default_Registered_Ttl                   1440 minutes
   Default_Negative_Referral_Ttl            15 minutes
   Default_Configured_Not_Registered_Ttl    1 minute







































Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 29]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


8.3.2.  Decision Tree Diagram

 +------------+
 |    Am I    | No
 |  authori-  |----> Return NOT_AUTHORITATIVE
 |   tative?  |       Incomplete = 1
 +------------+       TTL = Default_DdtNode_Ttl
       |
       |Yes
       |
       V
 +------------+     +-------------+
 | Delegation | Yes | Delegations | Yes
 |   exists?  |---->| are         |----> Return MS_REFERRAL
 |            |     | Map-Servers?|       TTL = Default_DdtNode_Ttl
 +------------+     +-------------+
       |                  \ No
       |No                 +--> Return NODE_REFERRAL
       |                        TTL = Default_DdtNode_Ttl
       V
 +------------+     +------------+                  +------------+
 | EID in     | Yes | Site       | Yes              | Map-Server |
 |  site      |---->| registered?|----> Forward---->| peers      |
 | config?    |     |            |      Map-Request | configured?|
 +------------+     +------------+      to ETR      +------------+
       |                |                           |        |
       |                |No                       No|        |Yes
       |                |                           |        |
       |                |                           V        V
       |                |                Return MS_ACK    Return MS_ACK
       |                V                with INC=1
       |         +------------+          TTL = Default_Registered_Ttl
       |         | Map-Server | Yes
       |         | peers      |----> Return MS_NOT_REGISTERED
       |         | configured?|      TTL = Default_Negative_Referral_Ttl
       |         +------------+
       |                \ No
       |No               +--> Return MS_NOT_REGISTERED
       |                      Incomplete = 1
       V                      TTL = Default_Negative_Referral_Ttl
 Return DELEGATION_HOLE
  TTL = Default_Negative_Referral_Ttl









Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 30]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


9.  Example Topology and Request/Referral Following

   This section shows an example DDT tree and several possible scenarios
   of Map-Requests coming to a Map-Resolver and subsequent iterative DDT
   referrals.  In this example, RLOCs of DDT nodes are shown in the IPv4
   address space while the EIDs are in the IPv6 AF.  The same principle
   of hierarchical delegation and pinpointing referrals is equally
   applicable to any AF whose address hierarchy can be expressed as a
   bit string with associated length.  The DDT "tree" of IPv4 prefixes
   is another AF with immediate practical value.  This section could
   benefit from additional examples, perhaps including one using IPv4
   EIDs and another using IPv6 RLOCs.  If this document is moved to the
   Standards Track, consideration should be given to adding such
   examples.





































Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 31]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   To show how referrals are followed to find the RLOCs for a number of
   EIDs, consider the following example EID topology for DBID=0, IID=0,
   AFI=2, and EID=0/0:

      +---------------------+  +---------------------+
      |  root1: 192.0.2.1   |  |  root2: 192.0.2.2   |
      | authoritative: ::/0 |  | authoritative: ::/0 |
      +---------------------+  +---------------------+
                 |         \   /        |
                 |          \ /         |
                 |           X          |
                 |          / \         |
                 |         /   \        |
                 |        |     |       |
                 V        V     V       V
  +-------------------------+  +--------------------------+
  |  DDT node1: 192.0.2.11  |  |  DDT node2: 192.0.2.12   |
  |      authoritative:     |  |      authoritative:      |
  |       2001:db8::/32     |  |       2001:db8::/32      |
  +-------------------------+  +--------------------------+
                 |         \   /        |
                 |          \ /         |
                 |           X          |
                 |          / \         |
                 |         /   \        |
                 |        |     |       |
                 V        V     V       V
 +--------------------------+  +---------------------------+
 | Map-Server1: 192.0.2.101 |  |  DDT node3: 192.0.2.201   |
 |      authoritative:      |  |      authoritative:       |
 |    2001:db8:0100::/40    |  |    2001:db8:0500::/40     |
 | site1: 2001:db8:0103::/48|  +---------------------------+
 | site2: 2001:db8:0104::/48|     |                    |
 +--------------------------+     |                    |
                                  |                    |
                                  |                    |
                                  V                    V
           +---------------------------+   +---------------------------+
           | Map-Server2: 192.0.2.211  |   | Map-Server3: 192.0.2.221  |
           |      authoritative:       |   |      authoritative:       |
           |    2001:db8:0500::/48     |   |    2001:db8:0501::/48     |
           |site3: 2001:db8:0500:1::/64|   |site5: 2001:db8:0501:8::/64|
           |site4: 2001:db8:0500:2::/64|   |site6: 2001:db8:0501:9::/64|
           +---------------------------+   +---------------------------+

   DDT nodes are configured for this "root" at IP addresses 192.0.2.1
   and 192.0.2.2.  DDT Map-Resolvers are configured with default
   referral cache entries for these addresses.



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 32]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   The root DDT nodes delegate 2001:db8::/32 to two DDT nodes with IP
   addresses 192.0.2.11 and 192.0.2.12.

   The DDT nodes for 2001:db8::/32 delegate 2001:db8:0100::/40 to a DDT
   Map-Server with RLOC 192.0.2.101.

   The DDT Map-Server for 2001:db8:0100::/40 is configured to allow ETRs
   to register the sub-prefixes 2001:db8:0103::/48 and
   2001:db8:0104::/48.

   The DDT nodes for 2001:db8::/32 also delegate 2001:db8:0500::/40 to a
   DDT node with RLOC 192.0.2.201.

   The DDT node for 2001:db8:0500::/40 is further configured to delegate
   2001:db8:0500::/48 to a DDT Map-Server with RLOC 192.0.2.211 and
   2001:db8:0501::/48 to a DDT Map-Server with RLOC 192.0.2.221.

   The DDT Map-Server for 2001:db8:0500::/48 is configured to allow ETRs
   to register the sub-prefixes 2001:db8:0500:1::/64 and
   2001:db8:0500:2::/64.

   The DDT Map-Server for 2001:db8:0501::/48 is configured to allow ETRs
   to register the sub-prefixes 2001:db8:0501:8::/64 and
   2001:db8:0501:9::/64.

9.1.  Lookup of 2001:db8:0103:1::1/128

   The first example shows a DDT Map-Resolver following a delegation
   from the root to a DDT node followed by another delegation to a DDT
   Map-Server.

   ITR1 sends an Encapsulated Map-Request for 2001:db8:0103:1::1 to one
   of its configured (DDT) Map-Resolvers.  The DDT Map-Resolver proceeds
   as follows:

   1.  Send a DDT Map-Request (for 2001:db8:0103:1::1) to one of the
       root DDT nodes (192.0.2.1 or 192.0.2.2).

   2.  Receive (and save in the referral cache) the Map-Referral for
       EID-prefix 2001:db8::/32, action code NODE-REFERRAL, RLOC set
       (192.0.2.11, 192.0.2.12).

   3.  Send a DDT Map-Request to 192.0.2.11 or 192.0.2.12.

   4.  Receive (and save in the referral cache) the Map-Referral for
       EID-prefix 2001:db8:0100::/40, action code MS-REFERRAL, RLOC set
       (192.0.2.101).




Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 33]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   5.  Send a DDT Map-Request to 192.0.2.101; if the ITR-originated
       Encapsulated Map-Request had a LISP-SEC signature, it is
       included.

   6.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.101 decapsulates the DDT
       Map-Request and forwards the Map-Request to a registered site1
       ETR for 2001:db8:0103::/48.

   7.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.101 sends a Map-Referral message
       for EID-prefix 2001:db8:0103::/48, action code MS-ACK, to the DDT
       Map-Resolver.

   8.  The DDT Map-Resolver receives the Map-Referral message and
       dequeues the pending request for 2001:db8:0103:1::1.

   9.  The site1 ETR for 2001:db8:0103::/48 receives the Map-Request
       forwarded by the DDT Map-Server and sends a Map-Reply to ITR1.

9.2.  Lookup of 2001:db8:0501:8:4::1/128

   The next example shows a three-level delegation: root to first DDT
   node, first DDT node to second DDT node, and second DDT node to DDT
   Map-Server.

   ITR2 sends an Encapsulated Map-Request for 2001:db8:0501:8:4::1 to
   one of its configured (DDT) Map-Resolvers, which are different from
   those for ITR1.  The DDT Map-Resolver proceeds as follows:

   1.   Send a DDT Map-Request (for 2001:db8:0501:8:4::1) to one of the
        root DDT nodes (192.0.2.1 or 192.0.2.2).

   2.   Receive (and save in the referral cache) the Map-Referral for
        EID-prefix 2001:db8::/32, action code NODE-REFERRAL, RLOC set
        (192.0.2.11, 192.0.2.12).

   3.   Send a DDT Map-Request to 192.0.2.11 or 192.0.2.12.

   4.   Receive (and save in the referral cache) the Map-Referral for
        EID-prefix 2001:db8:0500::/40, action code NODE-REFERRAL, RLOC
        set (192.0.2.201).

   5.   Send a DDT Map-Request to 192.0.2.201.

   6.   Receive (and save in the referral cache) the Map-Referral for
        EID-prefix 2001:db8:0501::/48, action code MS-REFERRAL, RLOC set
        (192.0.2.221).





Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 34]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   7.   Send a DDT Map-Request to 192.0.2.221; if the ITR-originated
        Encapsulated Map-Request had a LISP-SEC signature, it is
        included.

   8.   The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.221 decapsulates the DDT
        Map-Request and forwards the Map-Request to a registered site5
        ETR for 2001:db8:0501:8::/64.

   9.   The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.221 sends a Map-Referral message
        for EID-prefix 2001:db8:0501:8::/64, action code MS-ACK, to the
        DDT Map-Resolver.

   10.  The DDT Map-Resolver receives a Map-Referral(MS-ACK) message and
        dequeues the pending request for 2001:db8:0501:8:4::1.

   11.  The site5 ETR for 2001:db8:0501:8::/64 receives a Map-Request
        forwarded by the DDT Map-Server and sends a Map-Reply to ITR2.

9.3.  Lookup of 2001:db8:0104:2::2/128

   This example shows how a DDT Map-Resolver uses a saved referral cache
   entry to skip the referral process and go directly to a DDT
   Map-Server for a prefix that is similar to one previously requested.

   In this case, ITR1 uses the same Map-Resolver used in the example in
   Section 9.1.  It sends an Encapsulated Map-Request for
   2001:db8:0104:2::2 to that (DDT) Map-Resolver.  The DDT Map-Resolver
   finds an MS-REFERRAL cache entry for 2001:db8:0100::/40 with RLOC set
   (192.0.2.101) and proceeds as follows:

   1.  Send a DDT Map-Request (for 2001:db8:0104:2::2) to 192.0.2.101;
       if the ITR-originated Encapsulated Map-Request had a LISP-SEC
       signature, it is included.

   2.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.101 decapsulates the DDT
       Map-Request and forwards the Map-Request to a registered site2
       ETR for 2001:db8:0104::/48.

   3.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.101 sends a Map-Referral message
       for EID-prefix 2001:db8:0104::/48, action code MS-ACK, to the DDT
       Map-Resolver.

   4.  The DDT Map-Resolver receives the Map-Referral (MS-ACK) and
       dequeues the pending request for 2001:db8:0104:2::2.

   5.  The site2 ETR for 2001:db8:0104::/48 receives a Map-Request and
       sends a Map-Reply to ITR1.




Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 35]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


9.4.  Lookup of 2001:db8:0500:2:4::1/128

   This example shows how a DDT Map-Resolver uses a saved referral cache
   entry to start the referral process at a non-root, intermediate DDT
   node for a prefix that is similar to one previously requested.

   In this case, ITR2 uses the same Map-Resolver used in the example in
   Section 9.2.  It sends an Encapsulated Map-Request for
   2001:db8:0500:2:4::1 to that (DDT) Map-Resolver, which finds a
   NODE-REFERRAL cache entry for 2001:db8:0500::/40 with RLOC set
   (192.0.2.201).  It proceeds as follows:

   1.  Send a DDT Map-Request (for 2001:db8:0500:2:4::1) to 192.0.2.201.

   2.  Receive (and save in the referral cache) the Map-Referral for
       EID-prefix 2001:db8:0500::/48, action code MS-REFERRAL, RLOC set
       (192.0.2.211).

   3.  Send a DDT Map-Request to 192.0.2.211; if the ITR-originated
       Encapsulated Map-Request had a LISP-SEC signature, it is
       included.

   4.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.211 decapsulates the DDT
       Map-Request and forwards the Map-Request to a registered site4
       ETR for 2001:db8:0500:2::/64.

   5.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.211 sends a Map-Referral message
       for EID-prefix 2001:db8:0500:2::/64, action code MS-ACK, to the
       DDT Map-Resolver.

   6.  The DDT Map-Resolver receives the Map-Referral (MS-ACK) and
       dequeues the pending request for 2001:db8:0500:2:4::1.

   7.  The site4 ETR for 2001:db8:0500:2::/64 receives a Map-Request and
       sends a Map-Reply to ITR2.
















Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 36]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


9.5.  Lookup of 2001:db8:0500::1/128 (Nonexistent EID)

   This example uses the cached MS-REFERRAL for 2001:db8:0500::/48
   learned above to start the lookup process at the DDT Map-Server at
   192.0.2.211.  The DDT Map-Resolver proceeds as follows:

   1.  Send a DDT Map-Request (for 2001:db8:0500::1) to 192.0.2.211; if
       the ITR-originated Encapsulated Map-Request had a LISP-SEC
       signature, it is included.

   2.  The DDT Map-Server at 192.0.2.211, which is authoritative for
       2001:db8:0500::/48, does not have a matching delegation for
       2001:db8:0500::1.  It responds with a Map-Referral message for
       2001:db8:0500::/64, action code DELEGATION-HOLE, to the DDT
       Map-Resolver.  The prefix 2001:db8:0500::/64 is used because it
       is the least-specific prefix that does match the requested EID
       but does not match one of the configured delegations
       (2001:db8:0500:1::/64 and 2001:db8:0500:2::/64).

   3.  The DDT Map-Resolver receives the delegation, adds a negative
       referral cache entry for 2001:db8:0500::/64, dequeues the pending
       request for 2001:db8:0500::1, and returns a Negative Map-Reply
       to ITR2.

10.  Securing the Database and Message Exchanges

   This section specifies the DDT security architecture that provides
   data origin authentication, data integrity protection, and
   XEID-prefix delegation.  Global XEID-prefix authorization is out of
   scope for this document.

   Each DDT node is configured with one or more public/private key pairs
   that are used to digitally sign Map-Referral Records for
   XEID-prefix(es) for which the DDT node is authoritative.  In other
   words, each public/private key pair is associated with the
   combination of a DDT node and an XEID-prefix for which it is
   authoritative.  Every DDT node is also configured with the public
   keys of its child DDT nodes.  By including the public keys of target
   child DDT nodes in the Map-Referral Records and signing each Record
   with the DDT node's private key, a DDT node can securely delegate
   sub-prefixes of its authoritative XEID-prefixes to its child DDT
   nodes.  A DDT node configured to provide hints must also have the
   public keys of the DDT nodes to which its hints point.  DDT node keys
   can be encoded using LCAF Type 11 to associate the key to the RLOC of
   the referred DDT node.  If a node has more than one public key, it
   should sign its Records with at least one of these keys.  When a node
   has N keys, it can sustain up to N-1 key compromises.  The revocation
   mechanism is described in Section 10.2.1.



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 37]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   Map-Resolvers are configured with one or more trusted public keys,
   referred to as "trust anchors".  Trust anchors are used to
   authenticate the DDT security infrastructure.  Map-Resolvers can
   discover a DDT node's public key by either (1) having it configured
   as a trust anchor or (2) obtaining it from the node's parent as part
   of a signed Map-Referral.  When a public key is obtained from a
   node's parent, it is considered trusted if it is signed by a trust
   anchor or if it is signed by a key that was previously trusted.
   Typically, in a Map-Resolver, the root DDT node's public keys should
   be configured as trust anchors.  Once a Map-Resolver authenticates a
   public key, it locally caches the key along with the associated DDT
   node RLOC and XEID-prefix for future use.

10.1.  XEID-Prefix Delegation

   In order to delegate XEID sub-prefixes to its child DDT nodes, a
   parent DDT node signs its Map-Referrals.  Every signed Map-Referral
   MUST also include the public keys associated with each child DDT
   node.  Such a signature indicates that the parent DDT node is
   delegating the specified XEID-prefix to a given child DDT node.  The
   signature is also authenticating the public keys associated with the
   child DDT nodes, and authorizing them to be used by the child DDT
   nodes, to provide origin authentication and integrity protection for
   further delegations and mapping information of the XEID-prefix
   allocated to the DDT node.

   As a result, for a given XEID-prefix, a Map-Resolver can form an
   authentication chain from a configured trust anchor (typically the
   root DDT node) to the leaf nodes (Map-Servers).  Map-Resolvers
   leverage this authentication chain to verify the Map-Referral
   signatures while walking the DDT tree until they reach a Map-Server
   authoritative for the given XEID-prefix.

10.2.  DDT Node Operation

   Upon receiving a Map-Request, the DDT node responds with a
   Map-Referral as specified in Section 7.  For every Record present in
   the Map-Referral, the DDT node also includes the public keys
   associated with the Record's XEID-prefix and the RLOCs of the child
   DDT nodes.  Each Record contained in the Map-Referral is signed using
   the DDT node's private key.

10.2.1.  DDT Public Key Revocation

   The node that owns a public key can also revoke that public key.  For
   instance, if a parent DDT node advertises a public key for one of its
   child DDT nodes, the child DDT node can at a later time revoke that
   key.  Since DDT nodes do not keep track of the Map-Resolvers that



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 38]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   query them, revocation is done in a pull model, where the
   Map-Resolver is informed of the revocation of a key only when it
   queries the node that owns that key.  If the parent DDT node is
   configured to advertise that key, the parent DDT node must also be
   signaled to remove the key from the Records it advertises for the
   child DDT node; this is necessary to avoid further distribution of
   the revoked key.

   To securely revoke a key, the DDT node creates a new Record for the
   associated XEID-prefix and locator, including the revoked key with
   the R bit set.  (See Section 4.7 of [RFC8060] for details regarding
   the R bit.)  The DDT node must also include a signature in the Record
   that covers this Record; this is computed using the private key
   corresponding to the key being revoked.  Such a Record is termed a
   "revocation record".  By including this Record in its Map-Referrals,
   the DDT node informs querying Map-Resolvers about the revoked key.  A
   digital signature computed with a revoked key can only be used to
   authenticate the revocation and SHOULD NOT be used to validate any
   data.  To prevent a compromised key from revoking other valid keys, a
   given key can only be used to sign a revocation for that specific
   key; it cannot be used to revoke other keys.  This prevents the use
   of a compromised key to revoke other valid keys as described in
   [RFC5011].  A revocation record MUST be advertised for a period of
   time equal to or greater than the TTL value of the Record that
   initially advertised the key, starting from the time that the
   advertisement of the key was stopped by removal from the parent
   DDT node.

10.3.  Map-Server Operation

   Similar to a DDT node, a Map-Server is configured with one or more
   public/private key pairs that it must use to sign Map-Referrals.

   However, unlike DDT nodes, Map-Servers do not delegate prefixes and
   as a result do not need to include keys in the Map-Referrals they
   generate.

10.4.  Map-Resolver Operation

   Upon receiving a Map-Referral, the Map-Resolver MUST first verify the
   signature(s) by using either a trust anchor or a previously
   authenticated public key associated with the DDT node sending the
   Map-Referral.  If multiple authenticated keys are associated with the
   DDT node sending this Map-Referral, the Key Tag field (Section 6.4.1)
   of the signature can be used to select the correct public key for
   verifying the signature.  If the key tag matches more than one key
   associated with that DDT node, the Map-Resolver MUST try to verify
   the signature with all matching keys.  For every matching key that is



Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 39]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


   found, the Map-Resolver MUST also verify that the key is
   authoritative for the XEID-prefix in the Map-Referral Record.  If
   such a key is found, the Map-Resolver MUST use it to verify the
   associated signature in the Record.  If (1) no matching key is found,
   (2) none of the matching keys is authoritative for the XEID-prefix in
   the Map-Referral Record, or (3) such a key is found but the signature
   is not valid, the Map-Referral Record is considered corrupted and
   MUST be discarded.  This may be due to expired keys.  The
   Map-Resolver MAY try other siblings of this node if there is an
   alternate node that is authoritative for the same prefix.  If not,
   the Map-Resolver CAN query the DDT node's parent to retrieve a valid
   key.  It is good practice to use a counter or timer to avoid
   repeating this process if the Map-Resolver cannot verify the
   signature after several attempts.

   Once the signature is verified, the Map-Resolver has verified the
   XEID-prefix delegation in the Map-Referral.  This also means that
   public keys of the child DDT nodes were authenticated; the
   Map-Resolver must add these keys to the authenticated keys associated
   with each child DDT node and XEID-prefix.  These keys are considered
   valid for the duration specified in the Record's TTL field.

11.  Open Issues and Considerations

   There are a number of issues with the organization of the mapping
   database that need further investigation.  Among these are:

   o  Defining an interface to implement interconnection and/or
      interoperability with other mapping databases, such as LISP+ALT.

   o  Additional key structures for use with LISP-DDT, such as key
      structures to support additional EID formats as defined in
      [RFC8060].

   o  Management of the DDT Map-Resolver referral cache -- in
      particular, detecting and removing outdated entries.

   o  Best practices for either configuring hint referrals or avoiding
      their use.

   Operational experience will help answer open questions surrounding
   these and other issues.









Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 40]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


12.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has made the following early assignment per this document:

   o  Message type 6, "LISP DDT Map-Referral", was added to the
      "LISP Packet Types" registry.  See Section 6.4 ("Map-Referral
      Message Format").

   As this document is an Experimental RFC, this is an early allocation
   as per [RFC7120].

13.  Security Considerations

   Section 10 describes a DDT security architecture that provides data
   origin authentication, data integrity protection, and XEID-prefix
   delegation within the DDT infrastructure.

   Global XEID-prefix authorization is beyond the scope of this
   document, but the Secure Inter-Domain Routing (SIDR) working group
   [RFC6480] is developing an infrastructure to support improved
   security of Internet routing.  Further work is required to determine
   if SIDR's Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and the distributed
   repository system it uses for storing and disseminating PKI data
   objects may also be used by DDT devices to verifiably assert that
   they are the legitimate holders of a set of XEID-prefixes.

   This document specifies how DDT security and LISP-SEC [LISP-SEC]
   complement one another to secure the DDT infrastructure, Map-Referral
   messages, and the Map-Request/Map-Reply protocols.  In the future,
   other LISP security mechanisms may be developed to replace LISP-SEC.
   Such future security mechanisms should describe how they can be used
   together with LISP-DDT to provide similar levels of protection.

   LISP-SEC can use the DDT public-key infrastructure to secure the
   transport of LISP-SEC key material (the One-Time Key) from a
   Map-Resolver to the corresponding Map-Server.  For this reason, when
   LISP-SEC is deployed in conjunction with a LISP-DDT mapping database
   and the path between the Map-Resolver and Map-Server needs to be
   protected, DDT security as described in Section 10 should be enabled
   as well.











Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 41]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6833]  Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120,
              January 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

   [RFC8017]  Moriarty, K., Ed., Kaliski, B., Jonsson, J., and A. Rusch,
              "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2",
              RFC 8017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8017, November 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8017>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
              RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.















Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 42]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


14.2.  Informative References

   [AFI]      IANA, "Address Family Numbers",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/>.

   [LISP-SEC] Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., and D. Saucez,
              "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12, November 2016.

   [LISP-TREE]
              Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Saucez, D.,
              and O. Bonaventure, "LISP-TREE: a DNS Hierarchy to Support
              the LISP Mapping System", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
              in Communications, Volume 28, Issue 8,
              DOI 10.1109/JSAC.2010.101011, September 2010,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/
              abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5586446>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC5011]  StJohns, M., "Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC)
              Trust Anchors", STD 74, RFC 5011, DOI 10.17487/RFC5011,
              September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5011>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6837]  Lear, E., "NERD: A Not-so-novel Endpoint ID (EID) to
              Routing Locator (RLOC) Database", RFC 6837,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6837, January 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6837>.











Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 43]


RFC 8111                        LISP-DDT                        May 2017


Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to express their thanks to Lorand Jakab,
   Albert Cabellos, Florin Coras, Damien Saucez, and Olivier Bonaventure
   for their work on LISP-TREE [LISP-TREE] and LISP iterable mappings
   that inspired the hierarchical database structure and lookup
   iteration approach described in this document.  Thanks also go to
   Dino Farinacci and Isidor Kouvelas for their implementation work; to
   Selina Heimlich and Srin Subramanian for testing; to Fabio Maino for
   work on security processing; and to Job Snijders, Glen Wiley, Neel
   Goyal, and Mike Gibbs for work on operational considerations and
   initial deployment of a prototype database infrastructure.  Special
   thanks go to Jesper Skriver, Andrew Partan, and Noel Chiappa, all of
   whom have participated in (and put up with) seemingly endless hours
   of discussion of mapping database ideas, concepts, and issues.

Authors' Addresses

   Vince Fuller
   VAF.NET Internet Consulting

   Email: vince.fuller@gmail.com


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems

   Email: darlewis@cisco.com


   Vina Ermagan
   Cisco Systems

   Email: vermagan@cisco.com


   Amit Jain
   Juniper Networks

   Email: atjain@juniper.net


   Anton Smirnov
   Cisco Systems

   Email: as@cisco.com





Fuller, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 44]


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