draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon
Expires: January 20, 2019 Broadcom Expires: February 16, 2019 Broadcom
P. Agarwal P. Agarwal
Innovium Innovium
D. Lewis D. Lewis
M. Smith M. Smith
Cisco Cisco
July 19, 2018 August 15, 2018
LISP Generic Protocol Extension LISP Generic Protocol Extension
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-04 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-05
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation
(LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support multi- Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to
protocol encapsulation. support multi-protocol encapsulation.
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 http://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 January 20, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
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
1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 3 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 3
4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR 4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR
Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
LISP Data-Plane, as defined in in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], defines The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It
an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 (henceforth specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets
referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer
transport. UDP/IP transport.
The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being
encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only
IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [RFC7348] IP packet payloads. Other protocols, most notably Virtual eXtensible
(which defines a similar header format to LISP), are used to Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] (which defines a similar header
encapsulate L2 protocols such as Ethernet. format to LISP), are used to encapsulate Layer-2 (L2) protocols such
as Ethernet.
This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in This document defines an extension for the LISP header, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling
the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all
the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments. the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments.
A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the A flag in the LISP header, called the P-bit, is used to signal the
presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field, presence of the 8-bit Next Protocol field. The Next Protocol field,
when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing
and map-versioning features. The two features are still available, and map-versioning features. The two features are still available,
albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version. albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version.
1.1. Conventions 1.1. Conventions
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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. "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.
1.2. Definition of Terms 1.2. Definition of Terms
This document uses terms already defined in This document uses terms already defined in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions
As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol As described in Section 1, the LISP header has no protocol identifier
identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because that indicates the type of payload being carried. Because of this,
of this, LISP is limited to carry IP payloads. LISP is limited to carrying IP payloads.
The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags The LISP header [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] contains a series of flags
(some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an (some defined, some reserved), a Nonce/Map-version field and an
instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. The flags provide flexibility
to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is to define how the various fields are encoded. Notably, Flag bit 5 is
the last reserved bit in the LISP header. the last reserved bit in the LISP header.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LISP Header Figure 1: LISP Header
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE)
This document defines the following changes to the LISP header in This document defines two changes to the LISP header in order to
order to support multi-protocol encapsulation: support multi-protocol encapsulation: the introduction of the P-bit
and the definition of a Next Protocol field. This is shown in
Figure 2 and described below.
P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit 0 1 2 3
MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next 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
protocol field. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header
in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit
because this flag bit is currently unallocated.
Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.
carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the
protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
LISP uses the lower 24 bits of the first word for either a nonce, If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to the
an echo-nonce, or to support map-versioning definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
[I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis]. These are all optional capabilities that
are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and the V The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next
bit respectively. Protocol field.
Nonce/Map-Version: In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower
24 bits of the first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to
support map- versioning. These are all optional capabilities that
are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits
respectively.
When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the When the P-bit and the N-bit are set to 1, the Nonce field is the
middle 16 bits. middle 16 bits (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits). Note that
the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set.
When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version field is When the P-bit and the V-bit are set to 1, the Version fields use
the middle 16 bits. the middle 16 bits: the Source Map-Version uses the high-order 8
bits, and the Dest Map-Version uses the low-order 8 bits.
When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0, When the P-bit is set to 1 and the N-bit and the V-bit are both 0,
the middle 16-bits are set to 0. the middle 16-bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on
receipt.
The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the one
used in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP data plane
encapsulation, reduces the length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits.
As per [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs)
are required to generate different nonces when sending to
different Routing Locators (RLOCs), but the same nonce can be used
for a period of time when encapsulating to the same Egress Tunnel
Router (ETR). The use of 16 bits nonces still allows an ITR to
determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at the same
time.
Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields,
compared with [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], is reduced from 12 to 8
bits. This still allows to associate 256 different versions to
each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping
to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the
mapping.
Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to
carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the
protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
This document defines the following Next Protocol values: This document defines the following Next Protocol values:
0x1 : IPv4 0x1 : IPv4
0x2 : IPv6 0x2 : IPv6
0x3 : Ethernet 0x3 : Ethernet
0x4 : Network Service Header [RFC8300] 0x4 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LISP-GPE Header The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in
Section 5.1.
4. Backward Compatibility 4. Backward Compatibility
LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP.
The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane
capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data- capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data-
Planes" LCAF type defined in [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in
used, including static xTR configuration, but are out of the scope of [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR
this document. (xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document.
When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the P When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the
bit MUST be set to 0. P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in
this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated
that it supports this specification because such a router would
ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so
would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing
significant errors.
A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets to a non LISP- A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets to a non LISP-
GPE capable router. GPE capable router.
4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities 4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities
The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple
"Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply
Map-Reply to encode the encapsularion formats supported by a given to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In
RLOC. In this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-
support LISP-GPE on a given RLOC of that ETR. GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.
The "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as defined in [RFC8060], has a
Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations 25-bit field. This document
defines the least significant bit of that field as g bit (bit 24 in
the third 32-bit word of the LCAF).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 16 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations |g|U|G|N|v|V|l|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = x | Address ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as
defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to
represent support for each Data-Plane encapsulation. The values are
tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 5.2.
g Bit: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the
longword can accept LISP-GPE (Generic Protocol Extension) "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as:
encapsulation using destination UDP port 4341
All other fields: As defined in [RFC8060] g-Bit: The RLOCs listed in the Address Family Identifier (AFI)
encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE
(Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP
port 4341
4.2. Type of Service 4.2. Type of Service
When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] priority code point (PCP) field MAY be
mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in mapped from the encapsulated frame to the Type of Service field in
the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class'
field field
4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID) 4.3. VLAN Identifier (VID)
When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner
header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped
to, or used to determine the LISP Instance ID field. to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry
IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol". IANA is requested to set up a registry of LISP-GPE "Next Protocol".
These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are These are 8-bit values. Next Protocol values in the table below are
defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards
Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do
not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols. not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols.
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference | | Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This Document | | 0 | Reserved | This Document |
| 1 | IPv4 | This Document | | 1 | IPv4 | This Document |
| 2 | IPv6 | This Document | | 2 | IPv6 | This Document |
| 3 | Ethernet | This Document | | 3 | Ethernet | This Document |
| 4 | NSH | This Document | | 4 | NSH | This Document |
| 5..255 | Unassigned | | | 5..255 | Unassigned | |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry
IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes
Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an
ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060]. The
bitmap is the 3rd 32-bit word of the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF type.
Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation. New
values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126].
Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bit 24 (g-bit) to
LISP-GPE. Bits 25-31 are assigned in [RFC8060]).
+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference |
| Position | Name | | |
+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0-23 | | Unassigned | |
| 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This |
| | | (LISP-GPE) | Document |
| 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | [RFC8060] |
| 26 | G | Generic Network Virtualization | [RFC8060] |
| | | Encapsulation (GENEVE) | |
| 27 | N | Network Virtualization - Generic | [RFC8060] |
| | | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE) | |
| 28 | v | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension | [RFC8060] |
| | | (VXLAN-GPE) | |
| 29 | V | Virtual eXtensible Local Area | [RFC8060] |
| | | Network (VXLAN) | |
| 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | [RFC8060] |
| 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | [RFC8060] |
| | | (LISP) | |
+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security
considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835]. considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835].
With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and
traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload
encapsulated. encapsulated.
7. Acknowledgements and Contributors 7. Acknowledgements and Contributors
A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and
detailed review. detailed review.
This WG document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; the following This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe;
are its coauthors and contributors along with their respective the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their
affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of this document respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of
would like to thank and recognize them and their contributions. this document would like to thank and recognize them and their
These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable concepts and contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable
content for this document's creation. concepts and content for this document's creation.
o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Paul Quinn, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc.
o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc.
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 skipping to change at page 9, line 46
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8300>. editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fabio Maino (editor) Fabio Maino (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
97 lines changed or deleted 160 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/