--- 1/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06.txt 2019-10-18 12:13:04.051568789 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07.txt 2019-10-18 12:13:04.087569703 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force F. Maino, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track J. Lemon -Expires: March 24, 2019 Broadcom +Expires: April 20, 2020 Broadcom P. Agarwal Innovium D. Lewis M. Smith Cisco - September 20, 2018 + October 18, 2019 LISP Generic Protocol Extension - draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-06 + draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-07 Abstract This document describes extentions to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Data-Plane, via changes to the LISP header, to support multi-protocol encapsulation. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -27,61 +27,62 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2019. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2020. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4 - 3.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet - Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.1.2. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH - Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR - Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 8 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR + Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 12 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Introduction The LISP Data-Plane is defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. It specifies an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or IPv6 packets (henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer UDP/IP transport. The LISP Data-Plane header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated and therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only @@ -94,26 +95,30 @@ [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], to indicate the inner protocol, enabling the encapsulation of Ethernet, IP or any other desired protocol all the while ensuring compatibility with existing LISP deployments. 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, when present, uses 8 bits of the field allocated to the echo-noncing and map-versioning features. The two features are still available, albeit with a reduced length of Nonce and Map-Version. - LISP-GPE MAY also be used to extend the LISP Data-Plane header, that - has allocated all by defining a Next Protocol "shim" header that - implements new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. - As an example, the use of the Network Service Header (NSH) with LISP- - GPE, can be considered an extension to add support in the Data-Plane - for Network Service Chaining functionalities. + Since all of the reserved bits of the LISP Data-Plane header have + been allocated, LISP-GPE can also be used to extend the LISP Data- + Plane header by defining Next Protocol "shim" headers that implements + new data plane functions not supported in the LISP header. For + example, the use of the Group-Based Policy (GBP) header + [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] or of the In-situ Operations, + Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) header + [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] with LISP-GPE, can be considered + an extension to add support in the Data-Plane for Group-Based Policy + functionalities or IOAM metadata. 1.1. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "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 @@ -155,22 +160,22 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |N|L|E|V|I|P|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version | Next Protocol | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. - If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header conforms to the - definition in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. + If the P-bit is clear (0) the LISP header is bit-by-bit equivalent + 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 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. @@ -203,222 +208,386 @@ 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: - 0x1 : IPv4 + 0x01 : IPv4 - 0x2 : IPv6 + 0x02 : IPv6 - 0x3 : Ethernet + 0x03 : Ethernet - 0x4 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] + 0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] + + 0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned + 0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers) The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in - Section 5.1. + Section 6.1. -3.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions + Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols + encoded as generic "shim" headers. Shim protocols all use a common + header structure, which includes a next header field using the same + values as described above. When a shim header protocol is used with + other data described by protocols identified by next protocol values + from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before the further + protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate what follows + the shim protocol. - To ensure that protocols that are encapsulated in LISP-GPE will work - well from a transport interaction perspective, the specification of a - new encapsulated payload MUST contain an analysis of how LISP-GPE - SHOULD deal with outer UDP Checksum, DSCP mapping, and Explicit - Congestion Notification (ECN) bits whenever they apply to the new - encapsulated payload. + Implementations that are not aware of a given shim header MUST ignore + the header and proceed to parse the next protocol. Shim protocols + MUST have the first 32 bits defined as: - For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies - how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP - checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is - desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. Each - new encapsulated payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be - accompanied by a similar analysis. + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + ~ Protocol Specific Fields ~ + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Encapsulated payloads may have a priority field that may or may not - be mapped to the DSCP field of the outer IP header (part of Type of - Service in IPv4 or Traffic Class in IPv6). Such new encapsulated - payloads, when registered with LISP-GPE, MUST be accompanied by an - analysis similar to the one performed in Section 3.1.1 of this - document for Ethernet payloads. + Figure 3: Shim Header + + Where: + + Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol. + + Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not + including the first 4 octects. + + Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined + in this message. + + Next Protocol Field: This next protocol field contains the protocol + of the encapsulated payload. The protocol registry will be + requested from IANA as per section 10.2. + +4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations + +4.1. Applicability Statement + + LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP + usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of + these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the + nature of the encapsulated payload. + + [RFC8085] outlines two applicability scenarios for UDP applications, + 1) general Internet and 2) controlled environment. The controlled + environment means a single administrative domain or adjacent set of + cooperating domains. A network in a controlled environment can be + managed to operate under certain conditions whereas in general + Internet this cannot be done. Hence requirements for a tunnel + protocol operating under a controlled environment can be less + restrictive than the requirements of general internet. + + LISP-GPE scope of applicability is the same set of use cases covered + by[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] for the LISP dataplane protocol. The + common property of these use cases is a large set of cooperating + entities seeking to communicate over the public Internet or other + large underlay IP infrastructures, while keeping the addressing and + topology of the cooperating entities separate from the underlay and + Internet topology, routing, and addressing. + + LISP-GPE is meant to be deployed in network environments operated by + a single operator or adjacent set of cooperating network operators + that fits with the definition of controlled environments in + [RFC8085]. + + For the purpose of this document, a traffic-managed controlled + environment (TMCE), outlined in [RFC8086], is defined as an IP + network that is traffic-engineered and/or otherwise managed (e.g., + via use of traffic rate limiters) to avoid congestion. Significant + portions of text in this Section are based on [RFC8086]. + + It is the responsibility of the network operators to ensure that the + guidelines/requirements in this section are followed as applicable to + their LISP-GPE deployments + +4.2. Congestion Control Functionality + + LISP-GPE does not natively provide congestion control functionality + and relies on the payload protocol traffic for congestion control. + As such LISP-GPE MUST be used with congestion controlled traffic or + within a network that is traffic managed to avoid congestion (TMCE). + An operator of a traffic managed network (TMCE) may avoid congestion + by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-limiting of user data + traffic and traffic engineering according to path capacity. Encapsulated payloads may have Explicit Congestion Notification mechanisms that may or may not be mapped to the outer IP header ECN field. Such new encapsulated payolads, when registered with LISP- GPE, MUST be accompanied by a set of guidelines derived from - [RFC6040]. + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] and [RFC6040]. - The rest of this section specifies payload specific transport - interactions considerations for the two new LISP-GPE encapsulated - payloads specified in this document: Ethernet and NSH. +4.3. UDP Checksum -3.1.1. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for Ethernet - Encapsulated Payloads + For IP payloads, section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] specifies + how to handle UDP Checksums encouraging implementors to consider UDP + checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is + desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. - The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads. - Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage - guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to - protect UDP, LISP and Ethernet headers against corruption. + In order to provide integrity of LISP-GPE headers, options and + payload, for example to avoid mis-delivery of payload to different + tenant systems in case of data corruption, outer UDP checksum SHOULD + be used with LISP-GPE when transported over IPv4. The UDP checksum + provides a statistical guarantee that a payload was not corrupted in + transit. These integrity checks are not strong from a coding or + cryptographic perspective and are not designed to detect physical- + layer errors or malicious modification of the datagram (see + Section 3.4 of [RFC8085]). In deployments where such a risk exists, + an operator SHOULD use additional data integrity mechanisms such as + offered by IPSec. + + An operator MAY choose to disable UDP checksum and use zero checksum + if LISP-GPE packet integrity is provided by other data integrity + mechanisms such as IPsec or additional checksums or if one of the + conditions in Section 4.3.1 a, b, c are met. + + By default, UDP checksum MUST be used when LISP-GPE is transported + over IPv6. A tunnel endpoint MAY be configured for use with zero UDP + checksum if additional requirements in Section 4.3.1 are met. + +4.3.1. UDP Zero Checksum Handling with IPv6 + + When LISP-GPE is used over IPv6, UDP checksum is used to protect IPv6 + headers, UDP headers and LISP-GPE headers and payload from potential + data corruption. As such by default LISP-GPE MUST use UDP checksum + when transported over IPv6. An operator MAY choose to configure to + operate with zero UDP checksum if operating in a traffic managed + controlled environment as stated in Section 4.1 if one of the + following conditions are met: + + a. It is known that the packet corruption is exceptionally unlikely + (perhaps based on knowledge of equipment types in their underlay + network) and the operator is willing to take a risk of undetected + packet corruption + + b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps through + historic or current traffic flows that use non zero checksum) + that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where + the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected corruption + + c. LISP-GPE payload is carrying applications that are tolerant of + misdelivered or corrupted packets (perhaps through higher layer + checksum validation and/or reliability through retransmission) + + In addition LISP-GPE tunnel implementations using Zero UDP checksum + MUST meet the following requirements: + + 1. Use of UDP checksum over IPv6 MUST be the default configuration + for all LISP-GPE tunnels + + 2. If LISP-GPE is used with zero UDP checksum over IPv6 then such + xTR implementation MUST meet all the requirements specified in + section 4 of [RFC6936] and requirements 1 as specified in section + 5 of [RFC6936] + + 3. The ETR that decapsulates the packet SHOULD check the source and + destination IPv6 addresses are valid for the LISP-GPE tunnel that + is configured to receive Zero UDP checksum and discard other + packets for which such check fails + + 4. The ITR that encapsulates the packet MAY use different IPv6 + source addresses for each LISP-GPE tunnel that uses Zero UDP + checksum mode in order to strengthen the decapsulator's check of + the IPv6 source address (i.e the same IPv6 source address is not + to be used with more than one IPv6 destination address, + irrespective of whether that destination address is a unicast or + multicast address). When this is not possible, it is RECOMMENDED + to use each source address for as few LISP-GPE tunnels that use + zero UDP checksum as is feasible + + 5. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent LISP-GPE traffic over IPv6 + with zero UDP checksum from escaping into the general Internet. + Examples of such measures include employing packet filters at the + PETR and/or keeping logical or physical separation of LISP + network from networks carrying General Internet + + The above requirements do not change either the requirements + specified in [RFC2460] as modified by [RFC6935] or the requirements + specified in [RFC6936]. + + The requirement to check the source IPv6 address in addition to the + destination IPv6 address, plus the recommendation against reuse of + source IPv6 addresses among LISP-GPE tunnels collectively provide + some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of the IPv6 + header. A traffic-managed controlled environment that satisfies at + least one of three conditions listed at the beginning of this section + provides additional assurance. + +4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner - 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 - the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic Class' - field. + 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] 3-bit priority code point (PCP) field MAY + be mapped from the encapsulated frame to the 3-bit Type of Service + field in the outer IPv4 header, or in the case of IPv6 the 'Traffic + Class' field. When a LISP-GPE router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner header 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field. -3.1.2. Payload Specific Transport Interactions for NSH Encapsulated - Payloads - - The UDP Checksum considerations specified in section 5.3 of - [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] apply to NSH Encapsulated Payloads. - Implementors are encouraged to consider the UDP checksum usage - guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to - protect UDP, LISP, and NSH headers against corruption. - - When a LISP-GPE router performs an NSH encapsulation, DSCP and ECN - values MAY be mapped as specified for the Next Protocol encapsulated - by NSH (namely IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet). - -4. Backward Compatibility +5. Backward Compatibility LISP-GPE uses the same UDP destination port (4341) allocated to LISP. The next Section describes a method to determine the Data-Plane capabilities of a LISP ETR, based on the use of the "Multiple Data- Planes" LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) type defined in [RFC8060]. Other mechanisms can be used, including static ETR/ITR (xTR) configuration, but are out of the scope of this document. 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 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 (that have the P-bit set to 1) to a non-LISP-GPE capable router. -4.1. 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 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 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. 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. + tracked in an IANA registry as described in Section 6.2. This document defines bit 24 in the third 32-bit word of the "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF as: 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 -5. IANA Considerations +6. IANA Considerations -5.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry +6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry 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 - defined in this document. New values are assigned via Standards - Action [RFC8126]. The protocols that are being assigned values do - not themselves need to be IETF standards track protocols. + defined in this document. New values are assigned under the + Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are + being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards + track protocols. +---------------+-------------+---------------+ | Next Protocol | Description | Reference | +---------------+-------------+---------------+ - | 0 | Reserved | This Document | - | 1 | IPv4 | This Document | - | 2 | IPv6 | This Document | - | 3 | Ethernet | This Document | - | 4 | NSH | This Document | - | 5..255 | Unassigned | | + | 0x00 | Reserved | This Document | + | 0x01 | IPv4 | This Document | + | 0x02 | IPv6 | This Document | + | 0x03 | Ethernet | This Document | + | 0x04 | NSH | This Document | + | 0x05..0x7F | Unassigned | | + | 0x80 | GBP | This Document | + | 0x81 | iOAM | This Document | + | 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | | +---------------+-------------+---------------+ -5.2. 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 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]. + values are assigned under the Specification Required policy + [RFC8126]. - Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bit 24 (g-bit) to - LISP-GPE. Bits 25-31 are assigned in [RFC8060]). + 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 + conformant with [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) | | + | 25 | U | Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) | This | + | | | | Document | + | 26 | G | Generic Network Virtualization | This | + | | | Encapsulation (GENEVE) | Document | + | 27 | N | Network Virtualization - Generic | This | + | | | Routing Encapsulation (NV-GRE) | Document | + | 28 | v | VXLAN Generic Protocol Extension | This | + | | | (VXLAN-GPE) | Document | + | 29 | V | Virtual eXtensible Local Area | This | + | | | Network (VXLAN) | Document | + | 30 | l | Layer 2 LISP (LISP-L2) | This | + | | | | Document | + | 31 | L | Locator/ID Separation Protocol | This | + | | | (LISP) | Document | +----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+ -6. Security Considerations + Editorial Note (The following paragraph to be removed by the RFC + Editor before publication) + + The "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" was "hardcoded" in + RFC8060, assigning values to bits 25-31. This draft allocates the + "Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap" registry assigning a + value to bit 24 for the LISP-GPE encapsualtion, assigning bits 25-31 + values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future + allocation of values 0-23. + +7. Security Considerations LISP-GPE security considerations are similar to the LISP security considerations and mitigation techniques documented in [RFC7835]. The Echo Nonce Algorithm described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] 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 LISP, increases the probability of an off-path attacker to correctly guess the nonce and force the ITR to believe that a non-reachable RLOC is reachable. However, the use of common anti-spoofing mechanisms such as uRPF prevents this form of attack. + The considerations made in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] about use of + Echo Nonce, Map-Versioning, and Locator-Status-Bits apply to LISP-GPE + as well. + LISP-GPE, as many encapsulations that use optional extensions, is subject to on-path adversaries that by manipulating the g-Bit and the packet itself can remove part of the payload. Typical integrity protection mechanisms (such as IPsec) SHOULD be used in combination with LISP-GPE by those protocol extensions that want to protect from on-path attackers. With LISP-GPE, issues such as data-plane spoofing, flooding, and traffic redirection may depend on the particular protocol payload encapsulated. -7. Acknowledgements and Contributors +8. Acknowledgements and Contributors A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and detailed review. - This Workking Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; + This Working Group (WG) document originated as draft-lewis-lisp-gpe; the following are its coauthors and contributors along with their respective affiliations at the time of WG adoption. The editor of this document would like to thank and recognize them and their contributions. These coauthors and contributors provided invaluable concepts and content for this document's creation. o Darrel Lewis, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Fabio Maino, Cisco Systems, Inc. @@ -427,73 +596,109 @@ o Michael Smith, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Navindra Yadav, Cisco Systems, Inc. o Larry Kreeger o John Lemon, Broadcom o Puneet Agarwal, Innovium -8. References +9. References -8.1. Normative References +9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", draft-ietf- - lisp-6834bis-02 (work in progress), September 2018. + lisp-6834bis-04 (work in progress), August 2019. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol - (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 (work in progress), - September 2018. + (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 (work in progress), + June 2019. [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . -8.2. Informative References +9.2. Informative References + + [I-D.brockners-ippm-ioam-vxlan-gpe] + Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C., + Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Kfir, A., + Gafni, B., Lapukhov, P., and M. Spiegel, "VXLAN-GPE + Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-ippm- + ioam-vxlan-gpe-02 (work in progress), July 2019. + + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-encap-guidelines] + Briscoe, B., Kaippallimalil, J., and P. Thaler, + "Guidelines for Adding Congestion Notification to + Protocols that Encapsulate IP", draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn- + encap-guidelines-13 (work in progress), May 2019. + + [I-D.lemon-vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp] + Lemon, J., Maino, F., Smith, M., and A. Isaac, "Group + Policy Encoding with VXLAN-GPE and LISP-GPE", draft-lemon- + vxlan-lisp-gpe-gbp-02 (work in progress), April 2019. + + [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 + (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, + December 1998, . [RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November 2010, . + [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and + UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, . + + [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement + for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", + RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, + . + [RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, . [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, . [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, February 2017, . [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, March 2017, . + [RFC8086] Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE- + in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, + March 2017, . + [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., @@ -503,27 +708,27 @@ Authors' Addresses Fabio Maino (editor) Cisco Systems San Jose, CA 95134 USA Email: fmaino@cisco.com - John Lemon + Jennifer Lemon Broadcom 270 Innovation Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA - Email: john.lemon@broadcom.com + Email: jennifer.lemon@broadcom.com Puneet Agarwal Innovium USA Email: puneet@acm.org Darrel Lewis Cisco Systems