draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01.txt 
Network Working Group D. Farinacci Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental P. Pillay-Esnault Intended status: Experimental P. Pillay-Esnault
Expires: February 18, 2018 Huawei Technologies Expires: May 3, 2018 Huawei Technologies
W. Haddad W. Haddad
Ericsson Ericsson
August 17, 2017 October 30, 2017
LISP EID Anonymity LISP EID Anonymity
draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01
Abstract Abstract
This specification will describe how ephemeral LISP EIDs can be used This specification will describe how ephemeral LISP EIDs can be used
to create source anonymity. The idea makes use of frequently to create source anonymity. The idea makes use of frequently
changing EIDs much like how a credit-card system uses a different changing EIDs much like how a credit-card system uses a different
credit-card numbers for each transaction. credit-card numbers for each transaction.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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.
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 http://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 February 18, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
6. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Interworking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Performance Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Performance Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . . . . 8 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . . . . 8
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . 8 B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . . . . 8
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . 8 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 . . . . 8
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . 9 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 . . . . 9
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP architecture [RFC6830] specifies two namespaces, End-Point The LISP architecture [RFC6830] specifies two namespaces, End-Point
IDs (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). An EID identifies a node in IDs (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). An EID identifies a node in
the network and the RLOC indicates the EID's topological location. the network and the RLOC indicates the EID's topological location.
Typically EIDs are globally unique so a end-node system can connect Typically EIDs are globally unique so a end-node system can connect
to any other end-node system on the Internet. Privately used EIDs to any other end-node system on the Internet. Privately used EIDs
are allowed when scoped within a VPN but must always be unique within are allowed when scoped within a VPN but must always be unique within
skipping to change at page 4, line 15 skipping to change at page 4, line 15
global address, or participate in DHCP to get assigned a leased global address, or participate in DHCP to get assigned a leased
address. address.
Note that the ephemeral-EID can be mobile just like any other EID so Note that the ephemeral-EID can be mobile just like any other EID so
if it is initially registered to the mapping system with one or more if it is initially registered to the mapping system with one or more
RLOCs, later the RLOC-set can change as the ephemeral-EID roams. RLOCs, later the RLOC-set can change as the ephemeral-EID roams.
4. Design Details 4. Design Details
This specification proposes the use of the experimental LISP EID- This specification proposes the use of the experimental LISP EID-
block 2001:5::/32 when IPv6 is used. See IANA Considerations section block 2001:5::/32 [RFC7954] when IPv6 is used. See IANA
for a specific sub-block allocation request. When IPv4 is used, the Considerations section for a specific sub-block allocation request.
Class E block 240.0.0.0/4 is being proposed. When IPv4 is used, the Class E block 240.0.0.0/4 is being proposed.
The client end-node system will use the rest of the host bits to The client end-node system will use the rest of the host bits to
allocate a random number to be used as the ephemeral-EID. The EID allocate a random number to be used as the ephemeral-EID. The EID
can be created manually or via a programatic interface. When the EID can be created manually or via a programatic interface. When the EID
address is going to change frequently, it is suggested to use a address is going to change frequently, it is suggested to use a
programatic interface. The probability of address collision is programatic interface. The probability of address collision is
unlikely for IPv6 EIDs but could occur for IPv4 EIDs. A client end- unlikely for IPv6 EIDs but could occur for IPv4 EIDs. A client end-
node can create a ephemeral-EID and then look it up in the mapping node can create a ephemeral-EID and then look it up in the mapping
system to see if it exists. If the EID exists in the mapping system, system to see if it exists. If the EID exists in the mapping system,
the client end-node can attempt creation of a new random number for the client end-node can attempt creation of a new random number for
the ephemeral-EID. See Section 8 where ephemeral-EIDs can be the ephemeral-EID. See Section 8 where ephemeral-EIDs can be
preallocated and registered to the mapping system before use. preallocated and registered to the mapping system before use.
When the client end-node system is co-located with the RLOC and acts When the client end-node system is co-located with the RLOC and acts
as an xTR, it should register the binding before sending packets. as an xTR, it should register the binding before sending packets.
This eliminates a race condition for returning packets not knowing This eliminates a race condition for returning packets not knowing
where to encapsulate packets to the ephemeral-EID's RLOCs. See where to encapsulate packets to the ephemeral-EID's RLOCs. See
Section 8 for alternatives for fixing this race condition problem. Section 8 for alternatives for fixing this race condition problem.
When the client end-node system is not acting as an xTR, it should When the client end-node system is not acting as an xTR, it should
send some packets so its ephemeral-EID can be discovered by an xTR send some packets so its ephemeral-EID can be discovered by an xTR
which supports EID-mobility [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] so which supports EID-mobility [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] so mapping
mapping system registration can occur before the destination returns system registration can occur before the destination returns packets.
packets. When the end-node system is acting as an xTR, the EID and When the end-node system is acting as an xTR, the EID and RLOC-set is
RLOC-set is co-located in the same node. So when the EID is created, co-located in the same node. So when the EID is created, the xTR can
the xTR can register the mapping versus waiting for packet register the mapping versus waiting for packet transmission.
transmission.
5. Other Types of Ephemeral-EIDs 5. Other Types of Ephemeral-EIDs
When IPv6 Ephemeral-EIDs are used, an alternative to a random number When IPv6 Ephemeral-EIDs are used, an alternative to a random number
can be used. For example, the low-order bits of the IPv6 address can be used. For example, the low-order bits of the IPv6 address
could be a cryptographic hash of a public-key. Mechanisms from could be a cryptographic hash of a public-key. Mechanisms from
[RFC3972] could be used for EIDs. Using this approach allows the [RFC3972] could be used for EIDs. Using this approach allows the
sender with a hashed EID to be authenticated. So packet signatures sender with a hashed EID to be authenticated. So packet signatures
can be verified by the corresponding public-key. When hashed EIDs can be verified by the corresponding public-key. When hashed EIDs
are used, the EID can change frequently as rekeying may be required are used, the EID can change frequently as rekeying may be required
for enhanced security. for enhanced security. LISP specific control message signature
mechanims can be found in [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth].
6. Interworking Considerations 6. Interworking Considerations
If a client end-node is communicating with a system that is not in a If a client end-node is communicating with a system that is not in a
LISP site, the procedures from [RFC6832] should be followed. The LISP site, the procedures from [RFC6832] should be followed. The
PITR will be required to originate route advertisements for the PITR will be required to originate route advertisements for the
ephemeral-EID sub-block [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block] so it can ephemeral-EID sub-block [RFC7954] so it can attract packets sourced
attract packets sourced by non-LISP sites destined to ephemeral-EIDs. by non-LISP sites destined to ephemeral-EIDs. However, in the
However, in the general case, the coarse block from general case, the coarse block from [RFC7954] will be advertised
[I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block] will be advertised which would cover which would cover the sub-block. For IPv4, the 240.0.0.0/4 must be
the sub-block. For IPv4, the 240.0.0.0/4 must be advertised into the advertised into the IPv4 routing system.
IPv4 routing system.
7. Multicast Considerations 7. Multicast Considerations
A client end-node system can be a member of a multicast group fairly A client end-node system can be a member of a multicast group fairly
easily since its address is not used for multicast communication as a easily since its address is not used for multicast communication as a
receiver. This is due to the design characteristics of IGMP receiver. This is due to the design characteristics of IGMP
[RFC3376] [RFC2236] [RFC1112] and MLD [RFC2710] [RFC3810]. [RFC3376] [RFC2236] [RFC1112] and MLD [RFC2710] [RFC3810].
When a client end-node system is a multicast source, there is When a client end-node system is a multicast source, there is
ephemeral (S,G) state that is created and maintained in the network ephemeral (S,G) state that is created and maintained in the network
via multicast routing protocols such as PIM [RFC4602] and when PIM is via multicast routing protocols such as PIM [RFC4602] and when PIM is
used with LISP [RFC6802]. In addition, when used with LISP [RFC6802]. In addition, when
[I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] is used, ephemeral-EID [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] is used, ephemeral-EID state is
state is created in the mapping database. This doesn't present any created in the mapping database. This doesn't present any problems
problems other than the amount of state that may exist in the network other than the amount of state that may exist in the network if not
if not timed out and removed promptly. timed out and removed promptly.
However, there exists a multicast source discovery problem when PIM- However, there exists a multicast source discovery problem when PIM-
SSM [RFC4607] is used. Members that join (S,G) channels via out of SSM [RFC4607] is used. Members that join (S,G) channels via out of
band mechanisms. These mechanisms need to support ephemeral-EIDs. band mechanisms. These mechanisms need to support ephemeral-EIDs.
Otherwise, PIM-ASM [RFC4602] or PIM-Bidir [RFC5015] will need to be Otherwise, PIM-ASM [RFC4602] or PIM-Bidir [RFC5015] will need to be
used. used.
8. Performance Improvements 8. Performance Improvements
An optimization to reduce the race condition between registering An optimization to reduce the race condition between registering
ephemeral-EIDs and returning packets as well as reducing the ephemeral-EIDs and returning packets as well as reducing the
probability of ephemeral-EID address collision is to preload the probability of ephemeral-EID address collision is to preload the
mapping database with a list of ephemeral-EIDs before using them. It mapping database with a list of ephemeral-EIDs before using them. It
comes at a expense of rebinding all of registered ephemeral-EIDs when comes at a expense of rebinding all of registered ephemeral-EIDs when
there is an RLOC change. There is work in progress to consider there is an RLOC change. There is work in progress to consider
adding a level of indirection here so a single entry gets the RLOC adding a level of indirection here so a single entry gets the RLOC
update and the list of ephemeral-EIDs point to the single entry. update and the list of ephemeral-EIDs point to the single entry.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
When LISP-crypto [I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-crypto] is used the EID payload When LISP-crypto [RFC8061] is used the EID payload is more secure
is more secure through encryption providing EID obfuscation of the through encryption providing EID obfuscation of the ephemeral-EID as
ephemeral-EID as well as the global-EID it is communicating with. well as the global-EID it is communicating with. But the obfuscation
But the obfuscation only occurs between xTRs. So the randomness of a only occurs between xTRs. So the randomness of a ephemeral-EID
ephemeral-EID inside of LISP sites provide a new level of privacy. inside of LISP sites provide a new level of privacy.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This specification is requesting the sub-block 2001:5:ffff::/48 for This specification is requesting the sub-block 2001:5:ffff::/48 for
ephemeral-EID usage. ephemeral-EID usage.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989, RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997, 2", RFC 2236, DOI 10.17487/RFC2236, November 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2236>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
editor.org/info/rfc2710>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002, 3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener [RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
editor.org/info/rfc3810>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
[RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005, RFC 3972, DOI 10.17487/RFC3972, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3972>.
[RFC4602] Pusateri, T., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse [RFC4602] Pusateri, T., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) IETF Proposed Standard Requirements Mode (PIM-SM) IETF Proposed Standard Requirements
Analysis", RFC 4602, DOI 10.17487/RFC4602, August 2006, Analysis", RFC 4602, DOI 10.17487/RFC4602, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4602>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4602>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 26
PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007, PIM)", RFC 5015, DOI 10.17487/RFC5015, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5015>.
[RFC6802] Baillargeon, S., Flinta, C., and A. Johnsson, "Ericsson [RFC6802] Baillargeon, S., Flinta, C., and A. Johnsson, "Ericsson
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Value-Added Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) Value-Added
Octets", RFC 6802, DOI 10.17487/RFC6802, November 2012, Octets", RFC 6802, DOI 10.17487/RFC6802, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6802>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6802>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
editor.org/info/rfc6830>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller, [RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832, (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
editor.org/info/rfc6832>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-crypto] [RFC7954] Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller,
Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "LISP Data-Plane "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Endpoint Identifier
Confidentiality", draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-03 (work in (EID) Block", RFC 7954, DOI 10.17487/RFC7954, September
progress). 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7954>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block] [RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Iannone, L., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and V. Fuller, "LISP (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
EID Block", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-13.txt (work in DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
progress). <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast] 11.2. Informative References
Farinacci, D. and V. Moreno, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-00.txt (work in
progress).
[I-D.meyer-lisp-mn] [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA
Mobile Node", draft-meyer-lisp-mn-16 (work in progress), Authentication and Authorization", draft-farinacci-lisp-
December 2016. ecdsa-auth-01 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino, Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid- Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-00
mobility-02 (work in progress), April 2017. (work in progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-06 (work in
progress), August 2017.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and
acceptance of this draft. acceptance of this draft.
Appendix B. Document Change Log Appendix B. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-01
o Posted October 2017.
o Add to section 5 that PKI can be used to authenticate EIDs.
o Update references.
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-00
o Posted August 2017. o Posted August 2017.
o Made draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 a LISP working group o Made draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 a LISP working group
document. document.
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-02
o Posted April 2017. o Posted April 2017.
o Added section describing how ephemeral-EIDs can use a public key o Added section describing how ephemeral-EIDs can use a public key
hash as an alternative to a random number. hash as an alternative to a random number.
o Indciate when an EID/RLOC co-located, that the xTR can register o Indciate when an EID/RLOC co-located, that the xTR can register
the EID when it is configured or changed versus waiting for a the EID when it is configured or changed versus waiting for a
packet to be sent as in the EID/RLOC separated case. packet to be sent as in the EID/RLOC separated case.
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01
o Posted October 2016. o Posted October 2016.
o Update document timer. o Update document timer.
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00 B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-00
o Posted April 2016. o Posted April 2016.
o Initial posting. o Initial posting.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
70 lines changed or deleted 78 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/