< draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-02.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-03.txt >
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft V. Ermagan Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental J. Leong Intended status: Experimental V. Ermagan
Expires: May 7, 2019 F. Maino Expires: September 12, 2019 Google
J. Leong
F. Maino
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos-Aparicio A. Cabellos-Aparicio
Technical University of Catalonia Technical University of Catalonia
S. Barkai S. Barkai
Fermi Serverless Fermi Serverless
D. Farinacci D. Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
M. Boucadair M. Boucadair
C. Jacquenet C. Jacquenet
Orange Orange
S. Secci S. Secci
Cnam Cnam
November 3, 2018 March 11, 2019
Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-02 draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-03
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies an extension to the use of Map-Request to This document specifies an extension to the use of Map-Request to
enable Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation for LISP. enable Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation for LISP.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Map-Request PubSub Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Map-Request PubSub Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
splits current IP addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint splits current IP addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map- Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map-
and-encap approach that relies on (1) a Mapping System (basically a and-encap approach that relies on (1) a Mapping System (basically a
distributed database) that stores and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings distributed database) that stores and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings
and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) that encapsulate and and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) that encapsulate and
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
This operation is repeated for all EID-prefixes for which ITR/RTR/ This operation is repeated for all EID-prefixes for which ITR/RTR/
PITR want to be notified. The ITR/RTR/PITR can set the N-bit for PITR want to be notified. The ITR/RTR/PITR can set the N-bit for
several EID-prefixes within a single Map-Request. several EID-prefixes within a single Map-Request.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Definition of Terms 3. Deployment Assumptions
LISP xTR-ID: A 128-bit field that is used as a unique identifier
for an xTR. The xTR-ID is especially useful for identifying
multiple xTRs serving the same site/EID-prefix. A value of all
zeros indicate the xTR-ID is unspecified.
LISP Site-ID: A 64-bit field that is used as a unique identifier
of a group of xTRs belonging to the same site. A value of 0
indicate the Site-ID is unspecified.
4. Deployment Assumptions
The specification described in this document makes the following The specification described in this document makes the following
deployment assumptions: deployment assumptions:
(1) A unique 128-bit xTR-ID (plus a 64-bit Site-ID) identifier is (1) A unique 128-bit xTR-ID (plus a 64-bit Site-ID) identifier is
assigned to each xTR. assigned to each xTR.
(2) Map-Servers are configured in proxy-reply mode, i.e., they are (2) Map-Servers are configured in proxy-reply mode, i.e., they are
solicited to generate and send Map-Reply messages for the solicited to generate and send Map-Reply messages for the
mappings they are serving. mappings they are serving.
(3) There can be either a soft-state or hard-state security (3) There can be either a soft-state or hard-state security
association between the xTRs and the Map-Servers. association between the xTRs and the Map-Servers.
The distribution of xTR-IDs (and Site-IDs) as well as the management The distribution of xTR-IDs (and Site-IDs) as well as the management
of security associations are out of the scope of this document and of security associations are out of the scope of this document and
are for further study (see Section 8). are for further study (see Section 7).
5. Map-Request PubSub Additions 4. Map-Request PubSub Additions
Figure 1 shows the format of the updated Map-Request to support the Figure 1 shows the format of the updated Map-Request to support the
PubSub functionality. PubSub functionality.
0 1 2 3 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 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=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|R|I| Reserved | IRC | Record Count | |Type=1 |A|M|P|S|p|s|R|I| Rsvd |L|D| IRC | Record Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Nonce . . . | | Nonce . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . Nonce | | . . . Nonce |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... | | Source-EID-AFI | Source EID Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... | | ITR-RLOC-AFI 1 | ITR-RLOC Address 1 ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | | ... |
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
unspecified value is encoded for whichever ID that is not unspecified value is encoded for whichever ID that is not
configured. configured.
Notification-Requested bit (N-bit): The N-bit of an EID-record is Notification-Requested bit (N-bit): The N-bit of an EID-record is
set to 1 to specify that the xTR wants to be notified of updates set to 1 to specify that the xTR wants to be notified of updates
for that mapping record. for that mapping record.
xTR-ID field: xTR-ID is a 128 bit field at the end of the Map- xTR-ID field: xTR-ID is a 128 bit field at the end of the Map-
Request message, starting after the final Record in the message Request message, starting after the final Record in the message
(or the Map-Reply Record, if present). The xTR-ID is used to (or the Map-Reply Record, if present). The xTR-ID is used to
uniquely identify the sender of a Map-Request message, especially uniquely identify the sender of a Map-Request message. The xTR-ID
in the case where a site has more than one xTR. A value of all is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
zeros indicate that an xTR-ID is not specified, though encoded in
the message. This is useful in the case where a Site-ID is
specified, but no xTR-ID is configured.
Site-ID field: Site-ID is a 64 bit field at the end of the Map- Site-ID field: Site-ID is a 64 bit field at the end of the Map-
Request message, following the xTR-ID. Site-ID is used by the Request message, following the xTR-ID. Site-ID is used by the
Map-Server receiving the Map-Request message to identify which Map-Server receiving the Map-Request message to identify which
xTRs belong to the same site. A value of 0 indicates that a Site- xTRs belong to the same site. The Site-ID is defined in
ID is not specified, though encoded in the message. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
6. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures 5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures
The xTR subscribes for RLOC-set changes for a given EID-prefix by The xTR subscribes for RLOC-set changes for a given EID-prefix by
sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the
EID-Record. The xTR builds a Map-Request according to EID-Record. The xTR builds a Map-Request according to
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] but also does the following: [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] but also does the following:
(1) The xTR MUST set the I-bit to 1 and append its xTR-ID and Site- (1) The xTR MUST set the I-bit to 1 and append its xTR-ID and Site-
ID to the Map-Request. The xTR-ID uniquely identifies the xTR. ID to the Map-Request. The xTR-ID uniquely identifies the xTR.
(2) The xTR MUST set the N-bit to 1 for each EID-Record to which the (2) The xTR MUST set the N-bit to 1 for each EID-Record to which the
skipping to change at page 7, line 15 skipping to change at page 7, line 12
If the xTR-ID is added to the list, the Map-Server MUST send a Map- If the xTR-ID is added to the list, the Map-Server MUST send a Map-
Notify message back to the xTR to acknowledge the successful Notify message back to the xTR to acknowledge the successful
subscription. The Map-Server MUST follow the specification in subscription. The Map-Server MUST follow the specification in
Section 6.1.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify Section 6.1.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify
with the following considerations: with the following considerations:
(1) The Map-Server MUST use the nonce from the Map-Request as the (1) The Map-Server MUST use the nonce from the Map-Request as the
nonce for the Map-Notify. nonce for the Map-Notify.
(2) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR (2) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR
(see Section 4) to compute the authentication data of the Map- (see Section 3) to compute the authentication data of the Map-
Notify. Notify.
(3) The Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to one of the ITR-RLOCs (3) The Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to one of the ITR-RLOCs
received in the Map-Request. received in the Map-Request.
When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce that matches one in When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce that matches one in
the list of outstanding Map-Request messages sent with an N-bit set, the list of outstanding Map-Request messages sent with an N-bit set,
it knows that the Map-Notify is to acknowledge a successful it knows that the Map-Notify is to acknowledge a successful
subscription. The xTR processes this Map-Notify as described in subscription. The xTR processes this Map-Notify as described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following considerations. The [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following considerations. The
xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see
Section 4) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify. Section 3) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify.
The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map-cache with the The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map-cache with the
returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set. returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set.
The subscription of an xTR-ID to the list of subscribers for the EID- The subscription of an xTR-ID to the list of subscribers for the EID-
Record may fail for a number of reasons. For example, because of Record may fail for a number of reasons. For example, because of
local configuration policies (such as white/black lists of local configuration policies (such as white/black lists of
subscribers), or because the Map-Server has exhausted the resources subscribers), or because the Map-Server has exhausted the resources
to dedicate to the subscription of that EID-Record (e.g., the number to dedicate to the subscription of that EID-Record (e.g., the number
of subscribers excess the capacity of the Map-Server). of subscribers excess the capacity of the Map-Server).
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be overwritten. ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be overwritten.
If the Map-Request only has one ITR-RLOC with AFI = 0 (i.e., Unknown If the Map-Request only has one ITR-RLOC with AFI = 0 (i.e., Unknown
Address), the Map-Server MUST remove the subscription state for that Address), the Map-Server MUST remove the subscription state for that
xTR-ID. In this case, the Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to the xTR-ID. In this case, the Map-Server MUST send the Map-Notify to the
source RLOC of the Map-Request. When the TTL for the EID-record source RLOC of the Map-Request. When the TTL for the EID-record
expires, the EID-prefix is removed from the Map-Server's subscription expires, the EID-prefix is removed from the Map-Server's subscription
cache. On EID-Record removal, the Map-Server notifies the cache. On EID-Record removal, the Map-Server notifies the
subscribers via a Map-Notify with TTL equal 0. subscribers via a Map-Notify with TTL equal 0.
7. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures 6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures
The publish procedure is implemented via Map-Notify messages that the The publish procedure is implemented via Map-Notify messages that the
Map-Server sends to xTRs. The xTRs acknowledge the reception of Map- Map-Server sends to xTRs. The xTRs acknowledge the reception of Map-
Notifies via sending Map-Notify-Ack messages back to the Map-Server. Notifies via sending Map-Notify-Ack messages back to the Map-Server.
The complete mechanism works as follows. The complete mechanism works as follows.
When a mapping stored in a Map-Server is updated (e.g., via a Map- When a mapping stored in a Map-Server is updated (e.g., via a Map-
Register from an ETR), the Map-Server MUST notify the subscribers of Register from an ETR), the Map-Server MUST notify the subscribers of
that mapping via sending Map-Notify messages with the most updated that mapping via sending Map-Notify messages with the most updated
mapping information. The Map-Notify message sent to each of the mapping information. The Map-Notify message sent to each of the
skipping to change at page 8, line 50 skipping to change at page 8, line 48
When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce sent previously in a When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with a nonce sent previously in a
Map-Request, or with a nonce not present in any list of previously Map-Request, or with a nonce not present in any list of previously
sent nonces but with an EID not local to the xTR, the xTR knows that sent nonces but with an EID not local to the xTR, the xTR knows that
the Map-Notify has been received to update an entry on its map-cache. the Map-Notify has been received to update an entry on its map-cache.
Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify messages MUST be explicitly Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify messages MUST be explicitly
enabled via configuration at the xTR. enabled via configuration at the xTR.
The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations. The [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations. The
xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see
Section 4) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify. Section 3) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify.
The xTR MUST use the mapping information carried in the Map-Notify to The xTR MUST use the mapping information carried in the Map-Notify to
update its internal map-cache. The xTR MUST acknowledge the Map- update its internal map-cache. The xTR MUST acknowledge the Map-
Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack (specified in Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack (specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]), with the nonce from the Map-Notify, to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]), with the nonce from the Map-Notify, to
the Map-Server. If after a configurable timeout, the Map-Server has the Map-Server. If after a configurable timeout, the Map-Server has
not received back the Map-Notify-Ack, it can try to send the Map- not received back the Map-Notify-Ack, it can try to send the Map-
Notify to a different ITR-RLOC for that xTR-ID. Notify to a different ITR-RLOC for that xTR-ID.
8. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Generic security considerations related to LISP control messages are Generic security considerations related to LISP control messages are
discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
In the particular case of PubSub, cache poisoning via malicious Map- In the particular case of PubSub, cache poisoning via malicious Map-
Notify messages is avoided by the use of nonce and the security Notify messages is avoided by the use of nonce and the security
association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers. Nevertheless, the association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers. Nevertheless, the
way to provide a security association between the ITRs and the Map- way to provide a security association between the ITRs and the Map-
Servers must be evaluated according to the size of the deployment. Servers must be evaluated according to the size of the deployment.
For small deployments, it is possible to have a shared key (or set of For small deployments, it is possible to have a shared key (or set of
skipping to change at page 9, line 44 skipping to change at page 9, line 43
rate-limit Map-Notifies, a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one rate-limit Map-Notifies, a Map-Server MUST NOT send more than one
Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID. This parameter MUST be Map-Notify per second to a particular xTR-ID. This parameter MUST be
configurable. Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is configurable. Note that when the Map-Notify rate-limit threshold is
met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will silently discard met for a particular xTR-ID, the Map-Server will silently discard
additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID. Similarly, for additional subscription requests from that xTR-ID. Similarly, for
pending mapping updates that need to be notified to that xTR-ID, the pending mapping updates that need to be notified to that xTR-ID, the
Map-Server will combine them into a single Map-Notify (with multiple Map-Server will combine them into a single Map-Notify (with multiple
EID-records) which it will send when the rate-limit mechanism allows EID-records) which it will send when the rate-limit mechanism allows
it to transmit again Map-Notifies to that xTR-ID. it to transmit again Map-Notifies to that xTR-ID.
9. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
This work is partly funded by the ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR- This work is partly funded by the ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-
13-INFR-009 (https://www.lisp-lab.org). 13-INFR-009 (https://www.lisp-lab.org).
10. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
This document is requesting bit allocations in the Map-Request This document is requesting bit allocations in the Map-Request
message from the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits" registry introduced message from the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits" registry introduced
in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. In particular, this document requests in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. In particular, this document requests
allocating the following two bits from the sub-registry "Map-Request allocating the following two bits from the sub-registry "Map-Request
Header Bits". The position of these two bits in the Map-Request Header Bits". The position of these two bits in the Map-Request
message can be found in Figure 1. message can be found in Figure 1.
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
| Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description | | Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description |
| Name | | Position | | | Name | | Position | |
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
| I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit | | I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit |
| N | map-request-N | ... + 0 | Notification-Requested | | N | map-request-N | ... + 0 | Notification-Requested |
| | | | Bit | | | | | Bit |
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
Table 1: Additions to the LISP Map-Request Header Bits Sub-Registry Table 1: Additions to the LISP Map-Request Header Bits Sub-Registry
11. Normative References 10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 (work in progress), October draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February
2018. 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 41
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: natal@cisco.com Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan Vina Ermagan
Cisco Systems Google
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: vermagan@cisco.com Email: ermagan@gmail.com
Johnson Leong Johnson Leong
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: joleong@cisco.com Email: joleong@cisco.com
Fabio Maino Fabio Maino
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 40 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/