draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-08.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: April 20, 2020 Broadcom Expires: April 26, 2020 Broadcom
P. Agarwal P. Agarwal
Innovium Innovium
D. Lewis D. Lewis
M. Smith M. Smith
Cisco Cisco
October 18, 2019 October 24, 2019
LISP Generic Protocol Extension LISP Generic Protocol Extension
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07 draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-08
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to
support multi-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
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 April 20, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4
4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 7 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR
Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 12 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It
specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header
P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.
If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent
to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. to the definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next The P-bit is set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit Next
Protocol field. Protocol field. The combinations of bits that are allowed when
the P-bit is set are the same allowed by
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis].
Nonce/Map-Version: In [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis], LISP uses the lower 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 24 bits of the first word for a nonce, an echo-nonce, or to
support map- versioning. These are all optional capabilities that support map- versioning. These are all optional capabilities that
are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits are indicated in the LISP header by setting the N, E, and V bits
respectively. 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 (i.e., encoded in 16 bits, not 24 bits). Note that 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. the E-bit only has meaning when the N-bit is set.
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
The encoding of the Nonce field in LISP-GPE, compared with the one 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 used in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP data plane
encapsulation, reduces the length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits. encapsulation, reduces the length of the nonce from 24 to 16 bits.
As per [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) As per [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs)
are required to generate different nonces when sending to are required to generate different nonces when sending to
different Routing Locators (RLOCs), but the same nonce can be used different Routing Locators (RLOCs), but the same nonce can be used
for a period of time when encapsulating to the same Egress Tunnel 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 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 determine to and from reachability for up to 64k RLOCs at the same
time. time, but reduces the overall robustness of the nonce mechanism to
off-path attackers. Please refer to Section Section 7 for
security considerations that apply to the use of the Nonce field.
Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields, Similarly, the encoding of the Source and Dest Map-Version fields,
compared with [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], is reduced from 12 to 8 compared with [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], is reduced from 12 to 8
bits. This still allows to associate 256 different versions to bits. This allows to associate only 256 different versions to
each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping each Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator (EID-to-RLOC) mapping
to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the to inform commmunicating ITRs and ETRs about modifications of the
mapping. mapping, reducing the Map-versioning wrap-around time. Please
refer to Section Section 7 for security considerations that apply
to the use of the Map-Versioning field.
Next Protocol: The lower 8 bits of the first 32-bit word are used to 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 carry a Next Protocol. This Next Protocol field contains the
protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. protocol of the encapsulated payload packet.
This document defines the following Next Protocol values: This document defines the following Next Protocol values:
0x01 : IPv4 0x01 : IPv4
0x02 : IPv6 0x02 : IPv6
skipping to change at page 10, line 47 skipping to change at page 10, line 47
(xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of 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 When encapsulating IP packets to a non LISP-GPE capable router the
P-bit MUST be set to 0. That is, the encapsulation format defined in 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 this document MUST NOT be sent to a router that has not indicated
that it supports this specification because such a router would that it supports this specification because such a router would
ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so ignore the P-bit (as described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]) and so
would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing would misinterpret the other LISP header fields possibly causing
significant errors. significant errors.
A LISP-GPE router MUST NOT encapsulate non-IP packets (that have the
P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router.
5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities
LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the "Multiple
Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply Data-Planes" LCAF type, that can be included by an ETR in a Map-Reply
to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In to encode the encapsulation formats supported by a given RLOC. In
this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP- this way an ITR can be made aware of the capability to support LISP-
GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR. GPE, as well as other encapsulations, on a given RLOC of that ETR.
The 3rd 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF type, as 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 defined in [RFC8060], is a bitmap whose bits are set to one (1) to
skipping to change at page 11, line 46 skipping to change at page 11, line 40
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
| Next Protocol | Description | Reference | | Next Protocol | Description | Reference |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
| 0x00 | Reserved | This Document | | 0x00 | Reserved | This Document |
| 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document | | 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document |
| 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document | | 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document |
| 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document | | 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document |
| 0x04 | NSH | This Document | | 0x04 | NSH | This Document |
| 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | | | 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | |
| 0x80 | GBP | This Document |
| 0x81 | iOAM | This Document |
| 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | | | 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | |
+---------------+-------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------+---------------+
6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry
IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Multiple Data-Planes
Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an Encapsulation Bitmap" to identify the encapsulations supported by an
ETR in the Multiple Data-Planes LCAF Type defined in [RFC8060]. The 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. 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 Each bit of the bitmap represents a Data-Plane Encapsulation. New
values are assigned under the Specification Required policy values are assigned under the Specification Required policy
[RFC8126]. [RFC8126].
Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bits 24-31. Bit 24 Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bits 24-31. Bit 24
(bit 'g') is assigned to LISP-GPE, bits 25-31 assignment is (bit 'g') is assigned to LISP-GPE.
conformant with [RFC8060].
+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference | | Bit | Bit | Assigned to | Reference |
| Position | Name | | | | Position | Name | | |
+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0-23 | | Unassigned | | | 0-23 | | Unassigned | |
| 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This | | 24 | g | LISP Generic Protocol Extension | This |
| | | (LISP-GPE) | Document | | | | (LISP-GPE) | Document |
| 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | This | | 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | This |
| | | | Document | | | | | Document |
skipping to change at page 12, line 48 skipping to change at page 12, line 37
| 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | This | | 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | This |
| | | (LISP) | Document | | | | (LISP) | Document |
+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
Editorial Note (The following paragraph to be removed by the RFC Editorial Note (The following paragraph to be removed by the RFC
Editor before publication) Editor before publication)
The "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" was "hardcoded" in The "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" was "hardcoded" in
RFC8060, assigning values to bits 25-31. This draft allocates the RFC8060, assigning values to bits 25-31. This draft allocates the
"Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" registry assigning a "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" registry assigning a
value to bit 24 for the LISP-GPE encapsualtion, assigning bits 25-31 value to bit 24 for the LISP-GPE encapsulation, assigning bits 25-31
values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future
allocation of values 0-23. allocation of values 0-23.
7. Security Considerations 7. 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].
The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
relies on the nonce to detect reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP- relies on the nonce to detect reachability from ITR to ETR. In LISP-
GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce, compared with the 24-bit nonce used in GPE the use of a 16-bit nonce, compared with the 24-bit nonce used in
LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly
guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable
RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing
mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of attack. mechanisms such as uRPF mitigates this form of attack.
The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] about use of The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] that Echo
Echo Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits apply to LISP-GPE Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD NOT be used
as well. over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and
closed deployments apply to LISP-GPE as well. These considerations
are even more important for LISP-GPE, considering the reduced size of
the Nonce/Map-versioning field.
LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is
subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the
packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity
protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination
with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from
on-path attackers. on-path attackers.
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
skipping to change at page 14, line 40 skipping to change at page 14, line 32
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/ <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=6991460>. opac?punumber=6991460>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A.,
Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE
Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm- Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm-
ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019. ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines]
skipping to change at page 15, line 20 skipping to change at page 15, line 20
[I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp]
Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group
Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon- Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon-
vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019. vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6935>. editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
skipping to change at page 15, line 46 skipping to change at page 15, line 42
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7835>. editor.org/info/rfc7835>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>. March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE- [RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>. March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>.
[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,
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 34 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/