draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-11.txt		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12.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: May 7, 2020 Broadcom		Expires: May 22, 2020 Broadcom
	P. Agarwal		P. Agarwal
	Innovium		Innovium
	D. Lewis		D. Lewis
	M. Smith		M. Smith
	Cisco		Cisco
	November 4, 2019		November 19, 2019
	LISP Generic Protocol Extension		LISP Generic Protocol Extension
	draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-11		draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-12
	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
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 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		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶
	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) . . . . . . . 4		3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-GPE) . . . . . . . 4
	4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 6		4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.2. Congestion Control Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3. UDP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.4. Ethernet Encapsulated Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR		5.1. Detection of ETR Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1. LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.2. Multiple Data-Planes Encapsulation Bitmap Registry . . . 11		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. Acknowledgements and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	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
	(henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer		(henceforth jointly referred to as IP) in a LISP header and outer
	UDP/IP 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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 36 ¶
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Instance ID |		| Instance ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header		Figure 2: LISP-GPE Header
	Bits 0-3 and 8-23: Bits 0-3 and 8-23 of the LISP-GPE header are		Bits 0-3 and 8-23: Bits 0-3 and 8-23 of the LISP-GPE header are
	Reserved. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on		Reserved. They MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on
	receipt.		receipt.
	Features that were implemented with bits 0-3 in		Features that were implemented with bits 0-3 and 8-23 in
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], such as echo-noncing, map-versioning		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis], such as echo-noncing, map-versioning
	and reachability, can be implemented by defining the appropriate		and reachability, can be implemented by defining the appropriate
	shim headers.		shim headers.
	Instance ID When the I-Bit is set to 1 the high-order 24 bits of the		Instance ID When the I-Bit is set to 1 the high-order 24 bits of the
	Instance ID field are used as an Instance ID, as specified in		Instance ID field are used as an Instance ID, as specified in
	[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. The low-order 8 bits are set to zero,		[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]. The low-order 8 bits are set to zero,
	as the Locator-Status-Bits feature is not supported in LISP-GPE.		as the Locator-Status-Bits feature is not supported in LISP-GPE.
	P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.		P-Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 34 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 32 ¶
	0x02 : IPv6		0x02 : IPv6
	0x03 : Ethernet		0x03 : Ethernet
	0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]		0x04 : Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300]
	0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned		0x05 to 0x7F: Unassigned
	0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers)		0x80 to 0xFF: Unassigned (shim headers)
	The values are tracked in an IANA registry as described in		The values are tracked in the IANA LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry
	Section 6.1.		as described in Section 6.1.
	Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols		Next protocol values from Ox80 to 0xFF are assigned to protocols
	encoded as generic "shim" headers. Shim protocols all use a common		encoded as generic "shim" headers. All shim protocols MUST use the
	header structure, which includes a next header field using the same		header structure in Figure 3, which includes a Next Protocol field.
	values as described above. When a shim header protocol is used with		When a shim header is used with other protocols identified by next
	other data described by protocols identified by next protocol values		protocol values from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before
	from 0x0 to 0x7F, the shim header MUST come before the further		the further protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate
	protocol, and the next header of the shim will indicate what follows		which protocol follows the shim header.
	the shim protocol.
	Implementations that are not aware of a given shim header MUST ignore		Shim headers can be used to incrementally deploy new GPE features,
	the header and proceed to parse the next protocol. Shim protocols		keeping the processing of shim headers known to a given xTR
	MUST have the first 32 bits defined as:		implementation in the 'fast' path (typically an ASIC), while punting
			the processing of the remaining new GPE features to the 'slow' path.
			Shim protocols MUST have the first 32 bits defined as:
	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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol |		| Type | Length | Reserved | Next Protocol |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	~ Protocol Specific Fields ~		~ Protocol Specific Fields ~
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 6, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 27 ¶
	Where:		Where:
	Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol.		Type: This field identifies the different messages of this protocol.
	Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not		Length: The length, in 4-octect units, of this protocol message not
	including the first 4 octects.		including the first 4 octects.
	Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined		Reserved: The use of this field is reserved to the protocol defined
	in this message.		in this message.
	Next Protocol Field: This next protocol field contains the protocol		Next Protocol Field: The next protocol field contains the protocol
	of the encapsulated payload. The protocol registry will be		of the encapsulated payload. The values are tracked in the IANA
	requested from IANA as per section 10.2.		LISP-GPE Next Protocol Registry as described in Section 6.1.
	4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations		4. Implementation and Deployment Considerations
	4.1. Applicability Statement		4.1. Applicability Statement
	LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP		LISP-GPE conforms, as an UDP-based encapsulation protocol, to the UDP
	usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of		usage guidelines as specified in [RFC8085]. The applicability of
	these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the		these guidelines are dependent on the underlay IP network and the
	nature of the encapsulated payload.		nature of the encapsulated payload.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 9 ¶
	Class' field.		Class' field.
	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 IDentifier (IID) field.		to, or used to determine the LISP Instance IDentifier (IID) field.
	5. Backward Compatibility		5. 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
	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		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.
	5.1. Use of "Multiple Data-Planes" LCAF to Determine ETR Capabilities		5.1. Detection of 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 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)		The detection of ETR capabilities to support multiple data plane
	encoded addresses in the next longword can accept LISP-GPE		encapsulations and shim headers is out of the scope of this document.
	(Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP		Given that the applicability domain of LISP-GPE is a traffic-managed
	port 4341		controlled environment, ITR/ETR (xTR) configuration mechanisms may be
			used for this purpose.
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	6.1. 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".		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 under the		defined in this document. New values are assigned under the
	Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are		Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. The protocols that are
	being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards		being assigned values do not themselves need to be IETF standards
	skipping to change at page 11, line 19 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 48 ¶
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+
	| 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 | |
	| 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | |		| 0x82..0xFF | Unassigned | |
	+---------------+-------------+---------------+		+---------------+-------------+---------------+
	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 under the Specification Required policy
	[RFC8126].
	Bits 0-23 are unassigned. This document assigns bits 24-31. Bit 24
	(bit 'g') is assigned to LISP-GPE.
	+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	| 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) | 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 |
	+----------+-------+------------------------------------+-----------+
	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 encapsulation, assigning bits 25-31
	values that are conformant with RFC8060. This will allow future
	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].
	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
	skipping to change at page 14, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 14 ¶
	[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]		[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
	IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area		IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
	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,
	editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion		[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
	Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November		Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
	2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.		2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.
	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.,
	skipping to change at page 14, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 47 ¶
	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>.
	[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,
	editor.org/info/rfc6935>.		<https://www.rfc-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>.
	[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,		[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
	L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual		L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
	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,
	editor.org/info/rfc7835>.		<https://www.rfc-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,
	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		[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>.
	[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,
	editor.org/info/rfc8300>.		<https://www.rfc-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
	USA		USA
	Email: fmaino@cisco.com		Email: fmaino@cisco.com
	Jennifer Lemon		Jennifer Lemon
End of changes. 21 change blocks.
	114 lines changed or deleted		45 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/