draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-08.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09.txt 
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Experimental V. Ermagan Intended status: Experimental V. Ermagan
Expires: August 6, 2021 Google Expires: December 30, 2021 Google
A. Cabellos A. Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech UPC/BarcelonaTech
S. Barkai S. Barkai
Nexar Nexar
M. Boucadair M. Boucadair
Orange Orange
February 2, 2021 June 28, 2021
Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP Publish/Subscribe Functionality for LISP
draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-08 draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-09
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies an extension to the use of Map-Request to This document specifies an extension to the Request/Reply based LISP
enable Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation for LISP. Control Plane to enable Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) operation.
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 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 August 6, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Map-Request PubSub Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Map-Request PubSub Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Mapping Request Subscribe Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Mapping Notification Publish Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Security Association between ITR and MS . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Security Association between ITR and MS . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. DDoS Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. DDoS Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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-rfc6830bis]
splits current IP addresses in two different namespaces, Endpoint [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] splits current IP addresses in two
Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map- different namespaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing
and-encap approach that relies on (1) a Mapping System (basically a Locators (RLOCs). LISP uses a map-and-encap approach that relies on
distributed database) that stores and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings (1) a Mapping System (basically a distributed database) that stores
and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) that encapsulate and and disseminates EID-RLOC mappings and on (2) LISP tunnel routers
decapsulate data packets based on the content of those mappings. (xTRs) that encapsulate and decapsulate data packets based on the
content of those mappings.
Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) / Re-encapsulating Tunnel Routers Ingress Tunnel Routers (ITRs) / Re-encapsulating Tunnel Routers
(RTRs) / Proxy Ingress Tunnel Routers (PITRs) pull EID-to-RLOC (RTRs) / Proxy Ingress Tunnel Routers (PITRs) pull EID-to-RLOC
mapping information from the Mapping System by means of an explicit mapping information from the Mapping System by means of an explicit
request message. Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] indicates request message. Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] indicates
how Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) can tell ITRs/RTRs/PITRs about how Egress Tunnel Routers (ETRs) can tell ITRs/RTRs/PITRs about
mapping changes. This document presents a Publish/Subscribe (PubSub) mapping changes. This document presents a Publish/Subscribe (PubSub)
extension in which the Mapping System can notify ITRs/RTRs/PITRs extension in which the Mapping System can notify ITRs/RTRs/PITRs
about mapping changes. When this mechanism is used, mapping changes about mapping changes. When this mechanism is used, mapping changes
can be notified faster and can be managed in the Mapping System can be notified faster and can be managed in the Mapping System
versus the LISP sites. versus the LISP sites.
In general, when an ITR/RTR/PITR wants to be notified for mapping In general, when an ITR/RTR/PITR wants to be notified for mapping
changes for a given EID-prefix, the following steps occur: changes for a given EID-prefix, the following steps occur:
skipping to change at page 3, line 17 skipping to change at page 3, line 17
(3) The Map-Request is forwarded to one of the Map-Servers that the (3) The Map-Request is forwarded to one of the Map-Servers that the
EID-prefix is registered to. EID-prefix is registered to.
(4) The Map-Server creates subscription state for the ITR/RTR/PITR (4) The Map-Server creates subscription state for the ITR/RTR/PITR
on the EID-prefix. on the EID-prefix.
(5) The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify to the ITR/RTR/PITR to (5) The Map-Server sends a Map-Notify to the ITR/RTR/PITR to
acknowledge the successful subscription. acknowledge the successful subscription.
(6) When there is an RLOC-set change for the EID-prefix, the Map- (6) When there is a change in the mapping of the EID-Prefix, the
Server sends a Map-Notify message to each ITR/RTR/PITR in the Map-Server sends a Map-Notify message to each ITR/RTR/PITR in
subscription list. the subscription list.
(7) Each ITR/RTR/PITR sends a Map-Notify-Ack to acknowledge the (7) Each ITR/RTR/PITR sends a Map-Notify-Ack to acknowledge the
received Map-Notify. received Map-Notify.
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 Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Deployment Assumptions 3. Deployment Assumptions
The specification described in this document makes the following The specification described in this document makes the following
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
| | | |
+ Site-ID + + Site-ID +
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Map-Request with I-bit, N-bit, xTR-ID, and Site-ID Figure 1: Map-Request with I-bit, N-bit, xTR-ID, and Site-ID
The following is added to the Map-Request message defined in The following is added to the Map-Request message defined in
Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]: Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]:
xTR-ID bit (I-bit): The I-bit of a Map-Request message is set to 1 xTR-ID bit (I-bit): This bit is set to 1 to indicate that a 128
to indicate that a 128 bit xTR-ID and a 64 bit Site-ID fields are bit xTR-ID and a 64 bit Site-ID fields are present at the end of
present at the end of the Map-Request message. If an xTR is the Map-Request message. For PubSub operation, an xTR MUST be
configured with an xTR-ID or Site-ID, it MUST set the I-bit to 1 configured with an xTR-ID and Site-ID, and it MUST set the I bit
and include its xTR-ID and Site-ID in the Map-Request messages it to 1 and include its xTR-ID and Site-ID in the Map-Request
generates. If either the xTR-ID or Site-ID is not configured, an messages it generates.
unspecified value is encoded for whichever ID that is not
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. The xTR-ID uniquely identify the sender of a Map-Request message. The xTR-ID
is defined in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] is defined in Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
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. The Site-ID is defined in xTRs belong to the same site. The Site-ID is defined in
Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Section 5.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
5. 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 changes for a given EID-prefix by sending a
sending a Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the Map-Request to the Mapping System with the N-bit set on the EID-
EID-Record. The xTR builds a Map-Request according to Section 5.3 of Record. The xTR builds a Map-Request according to Section 5.3 of
[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
xTR wants to subscribe. xTR wants to subscribe.
The Map-Request is forwarded to the appropriate Map-Server through The Map-Request is forwarded to the appropriate Map-Server through
the Mapping System. This document does not assume that a Map-Server the Mapping System. This document does not assume that a Map-Server
is pre-assigned to handle the subscription state for a given xTR. is pre-assigned to handle the subscription state for a given xTR.
The Map-Server that receives the Map-Request will be the Map-Server The Map-Server that receives the Map-Request will be the Map-Server
responsible to notify that specific xTR about future mapping changes responsible to notify that specific xTR about future mapping changes
for the subscribed mapping records. for the subscribed mapping records.
Upon receipt of the Map-Request, the Map-Server processes it as Upon receipt of the Map-Request, the Map-Server processes it as
described in Section 8.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Furthermore, described in Section 8.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. Furthermore,
upon processing, for each EID-Record that has the N-bit set to 1, the upon processing, for each EID-Record that has the N-bit set to 1, the
Map-Server proceeds adding the xTR-ID contained in the Map-Request to Map-Server proceeds to add the xTR-ID contained in the Map-Request to
the list of xTR that have requested to be subscribed to that mapping the list of xTRs that have requested to be subscribed to that mapping
record. record.
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 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to build the Map-Notify Section 5.7 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 7.1) to compute the authentication data of the Map- (see Section 7.1) 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 (which one is implementation
specific).
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
Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following Section 5.7 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with the following
considerations. The xTR MUST use its security association with the considerations. The xTR MUST use its security association with the
Map-Server (see Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on Map-Server (see Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on
the Map-Notify. The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map- the Map-Notify. The xTR MUST use the Map-Notify to populate its map-
cache with the returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set. cache with the returned EID-prefix and RLOC-set.
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 6
EID-Record, the Map-Server MUST extract the nonce and ITR-RLOCs EID-Record, the Map-Server MUST extract the nonce and ITR-RLOCs
present in the Map-Request, and store the association between the present in the Map-Request, and store the association between the
EID-Record, xTR-ID, ITR-RLOCs and nonce. Any already present state EID-Record, xTR-ID, ITR-RLOCs and nonce. Any already present state
regarding ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be regarding ITR-RLOCs and/or nonce for the same xTR-ID MUST be
overwritten. overwritten.
The following specifies the procedure to remove a subscription. If The following specifies the procedure to remove a subscription. If
the Map-Request only has one ITR-RLOC with AFI = 0 (i.e., Unknown 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.
expires, the EID-prefix is removed from the Map-Server's subscription
cache. On EID-Record removal, the Map-Server notifies the When an EID-Record is removed from the Map-Server (either when
subscribers via a Map-Notify with TTL equal 0. explicitly withdrawn or when its TTL expires), the Map-Server
notifies its subscribers (if any) via a Map-Notify with TTL equal 0.
6. 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
subscribers as a result of an update event MUST follow the exact subscribers as a result of an update event MUST follow the exact
encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of encoding and logic defined in Section 5.7 of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following: [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] for Map-Notify, except for the following:
(1) The Map-Notify MUST be sent to one of the ITR-RLOCs associated (1) The Map-Notify MUST be sent to one of the ITR-RLOCs associated
with the xTR-ID of the subscriber. with the xTR-ID of the subscriber (which one is implementation
specific).
(2) The Map-Server increments the nonce by one every time it sends a (2) The Map-Server increments the nonce by one every time it sends a
Map-Notify as publication to an xTR-ID for a particular EID- Map-Notify as publication to an xTR-ID for a particular EID-
Record. The starting nonce is set as follows, if the Record. The starting nonce is set as follows, if the
subscription state at the Map-Server was created by a received subscription state at the Map-Server was created by a received
Map-Request with the N-bit set, the starting nonce in the Map- Map-Request with the N-bit set, the starting nonce in the Map-
Notify sent as publication MUST be the one used in the Map- Notify sent as publication MUST be the one used in the Map-
Request that created the subscription state. If the Request that created the subscription state. If the
subscription state was created by explicit configuration at the subscription state was created by explicit configuration at the
Map-Server, the starting nonce in the Map-Notify sent as Map-Server (possible when a pre-shared security association
publication MUST be randomly generated by the Map-Server. exists, see Section 7), the starting nonce in the Map-Notify
sent as publication MUST be randomly generated by the Map-
Server.
(3) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR to (3) The Map-Server MUST use its security association with the xTR to
compute the authentication data of the Map-Notify. compute the authentication data of the Map-Notify.
When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID not local to the xTR, When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID not local to the xTR,
the xTR knows that the Map-Notify has been received to update an the xTR knows that the Map-Notify has been received to update an
entry on its map-cache. Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify entry on its map-cache. Processing of unsolicited Map-Notify
messages MUST be explicitly enabled via configuration at the xTR. messages MUST be explicitly enabled via configuration at the xTR.
The xTR MUST keep track of the last nonce seen in a Map-Notify The xTR MUST keep track of the last nonce seen in a Map-Notify
received as a publication from the Map-Server for the EID-Record. If received as a publication from the Map-Server for the EID-Record. If
skipping to change at page 8, line 26 skipping to change at page 8, line 28
The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in Section 5.7 The xTR processes the received Map-Notify as specified in Section 5.7
of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations. of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the following considerations.
The xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see The xTR MUST use its security association with the Map-Server (see
Section 7.1) to validate the authentication data on the Map-Notify. Section 7.1) 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 Section 5.7 of Notify by sending back a Map-Notify-Ack (specified in Section 5.7 of
[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. If the Map-Server
tries all the ITR-RLOCs without receiving a response, it may stop
trying to send the Map-Notify.
7. 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 Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. discussed in Section 9 of [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. association between the ITRs and the Map-Servers.
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 11, line 43
Email: stefano.secci@cnam.fr Email: stefano.secci@cnam.fr
9. Acknowledgments 9. 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 10. IANA Considerations
This document is requesting bit allocations in the Map-Request This document requests IANA to assign a new bit from the "LISP
message from the "LISP Control Plane Header Bits" registry introduced Control Plane Header Bits: Map-Request" sub-registry under the
in Section 12.6 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. In particular, this "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters" registry available
document requests allocating the following two bits from the sub- at [IANA-LISP]. The position of this bit in the Map-Request message
registry "Map-Request Header Bits". The position of these two bits can be found in Figure 1.
in the Map-Request message can be found in Figure 1.
+-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
| Spec Name | IANA Name | Bit Position | Description |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
| I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+-------------+
Table 1: Additions to the Map-Request Header Bits Sub-Registry
This document also requests the creation of a new sub-registry
entitled "LISP Map-Request Record Bits" under the "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters" registry available at
[IANA-LISP].
The initial content of this sub-registry is shown below:
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
| Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description | | Spec | IANA Name | Bit | Description |
| Name | | Position | | | Name | | Position | |
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
| I | map-request-I | 11 | xTR-ID Bit | | N | map-request-N | 1 | Notification-Requested |
| N | map-request-N | ... + 0 | Notification-Requested |
| | | | Bit | | | | | Bit |
+----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+ +----------+---------------+-------------+--------------------------+
Table 1: Additions to the LISP Map-Request Header Bits Sub-Registry Bits in position 2-8 are for future assignment.
The policy for allocating new bits from this sub-registry is
Specification Required (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]).
11. Normative References 11. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36 (work in progress), November
2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos- Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control- "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-30 (work in progress), November
November 2020. 2020.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., and D. Saucez,
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-22 "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-22 (work
(work in progress), January 2021. in progress), January 2021.
[IANA-LISP]
IANA, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/lisp-parameters/lisp-
parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, [RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Cisco
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
59 lines changed or deleted 97 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/