diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'vpp/vnet/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | vpp/vnet/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt | 826 |
1 files changed, 826 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/vpp/vnet/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt b/vpp/vnet/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5e3da150 --- /dev/null +++ b/vpp/vnet/vnet/lisp-gpe/rfc.txt @@ -0,0 +1,826 @@ +Network Working Group D. Lewis +Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. +Intended status: Informational P. Agarwal +Expires: January 5, 2015 Broadcom + L. Kreeger + F. Maino + P. Quinn + M. Smith + N. Yadav + Cisco Systems, Inc. + July 4, 2014 + + + LISP Generic Protocol Extension + draft-lewis-lisp-gpe-02.txt + +Abstract + + This draft describes extending the Locator/ID Separation Protocol + (LISP) [RFC6830], via changes to the LISP header, with three new + capabilities: support for multi-protocol encapsulation, operations, + administration and management (OAM) signaling, and explicit + versioning. + +Status of this Memo + + This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the + provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + 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 January 5, 2015. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2014 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 + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 1] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + + (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-gpe) . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1. Multi Protocol Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.2. OAM Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.3. Version Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.1. LISP-gpe Routers to (legacy) LISP Routers . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.2. (legacy) LISP Routers to LISP-gpe Routers . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.3. Type of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4.4. VLAN Identifier (VID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5. LISP-gpe Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +1. Introduction + + LISP [RFC6830] defines an encapsulation format that carries IPv4 or + IPv6 (henceforth referred to as IP) packets in a LISP header and + outer UDP/IP transport. + + The LISP header does not specify the protocol being encapsulated and + therefore is currently limited to encapsulating only IP packet + payloads. Other protocols, most notably VXLAN [VXLAN] (which defines + a similar header format to LISP), are used to encapsulate L2 + protocols such as Ethernet. LISP [RFC6830] can be extended to + indicate the inner protocol, enabling the encapsulation of Ethernet, + IP or any other desired protocol all the while ensuring compatibility + with existing LISP [RFC6830] deployments. + + As LISP is deployed, there's also the need to provide increased + visibility and diagnostic capabilities within the overlay. + + This document describes extending LISP ([RFC6830]) via the following + changes: + + Next Protocol Bit (P bit): A reserved flag bit is allocated, and set + in the LISP-gpe header to indicate that a next protocol field is + present. + + OAM Flag Bit (O bit): A reserved flag bit is allocated, and set in + the LISP-gpe header, to indicate that the packet is an OAM packet. + + Version: Two reserved bits are allocated, and set in the LISP-gpe + header, to indicate LISP-gpe protocol version. + + Next protocol: An 8 bit next protocol field is present in the LISP- + gpe header. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +2. LISP Header Without Protocol Extensions + + As described in the introduction, the LISP header has no protocol + identifier that indicates the type of payload being carried by LISP. + Because of this, LISP is limited to an IP payload. Furthermore, the + LISP header has no mechanism to signal OAM packets. + + The LISP header contains flags (some defined, some reserved), a + Nonce/Map-version field and an instance ID/Locator-status-bit field. + The flags provide flexibility to define how the reserved bits can be + used to change the definition of the LISP header. + + + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|flags| Nonce/Map-Version | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + Figure 1: LISP Header + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 4] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +3. Generic Protocol Extension for LISP (LISP-gpe) + +3.1. Multi Protocol Support + + This draft defines the following changes to the LISP header in order + to support multi-protocol encapsulation. + + P Bit: Flag bit 5 is defined as the Next Protocol bit. The P bit + MUST be set to 1 to indicate the presence of the 8 bit next + protocol field. + + P = 0 indicates that the payload MUST conform to LISP as defined + in [RFC6830]. + + Flag bit 5 was chosen as the P bit because this flag bit is + currently unallocated in LISP [RFC6830]. + + Next Protocol Field: The lower 8 bits of the first word are used to + carry a next protocol. This next protocol field contains the + protocol of the encapsulated payload packet. + + LISP [RFC6830] uses the lower 16 bits of the first word for either + a nonce, an echo-nonce ([RFC6830]) or to support map-versioning + ([RFC6834]). These are all optional capabilities that are + indicated by setting the N, E, and the V bit respectively. + + To maintain the desired data plane compatibility, when the P bit + is set, the N, E, and V bits MUST be set to zero. + + A new protocol registry will be requested from IANA for the Next + Protocol field. This draft defines the following Next Protocol + values: + + 0x1 : IPv4 + + 0x2 : IPv6 + + 0x3 : Ethernet + + 0x4: Network Service Header + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 5] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|P|R|R| Reserved | Next Protocol | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + Figure 2: LISP-gpe Next Protocol (P=1) + +3.2. OAM Support + + Flag bit 7 is defined as the O bit. When the O bit is set to 1, the + packet is an OAM packet and OAM processing MUST occur. The OAM + protocol details are out of scope for this document. As with the + P-bit, bit 7 is currently a reserved flag in [RFC6830]. + + + + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|P|R|O| Reserved | Next Protocol | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + Figure 3: LISP-gpe OAM bit (P=1) + +3.3. Version Bits + + LISP-gpe bits8 and 9 are defined as version bits. The version field + is used to ensure backward compatibility going forward with future + LISP-gpe updates. + + The initial version for LISP-gpe is 0. + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 6] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|P|R|O|Ver| Reserved | Next Protocol | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + Figure 4: LISP-gpe Version bits (P=1) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 7] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +4. Backward Compatibility + + Undefined (in RFC6830) flag bits 5 and 7, LISP-gpe P and O bits, were + selected to ensure compatibility with existing LISP [RFC6830] + deployments. + + Similarly, using P = 0 to indicate that the format of the header and + payload conforms to [RFC6830] ensures compatibility with existing + LISP hardware forwarding platforms. + +4.1. LISP-gpe Routers to (legacy) LISP Routers + + A LISP-gpe router MUST not encapsulate non-IP packet nor OAM packets + to a LISP router. A method for determining the capabilities of a + LISP router (gpe or "legacy") is out of the scope of this draft. + + When encapsulating IP packets to a LISP router the P bit SHOULD be + set to 1 and the UDP port MUST be set to 4341. OAM bit MUST be set + to 0. The Next Protocol field SHOULD be 0x1 (IPv4) or 0x2 (IPv6). + The (legacy) LISP router will ignore the P bit and the protocol type + field. The (legacy) LISP router will treat the packet as a LISP + packet and inspect the first nibble of the payload to determine the + IP version. + + When the P bit is set, the N, E, and V bits MUST be set to zero. The + receiving (legacy) LISP router will ignore N, E and V bits, when the + P bit is set. + +4.2. (legacy) LISP Routers to LISP-gpe Routers + + When a LISP-gpe router receives a packet from a (legacy) LISP router, + the P bit MUST not be set and the UDP port MUST be 4341. The payload + MUST be IP, and the LISP-gpe router will inspect the first nibble of + the payload to determine IP version. + +4.3. Type of Service + + When a LISP-gpe router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner + 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] 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. + +4.4. VLAN Identifier (VID) + + When a LISP-gpe router performs Ethernet encapsulation, the inner + header 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] VLAN Identifier (VID) MAY be mapped to, or + used to determine the LISP Instance ID field. + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 8] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +5. LISP-gpe Examples + + This section provides two examples of IP protocols, and one example + of Ethernet encapsulated LISP-gpe using the generic extension + described in this document. + + + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|1|0|0|0| Reserved | NP = IPv4 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Original IPv4 Packet | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + Figure 5: IPv4 and LISP-gpe + + + + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|1|0|0|0| Reserved | NP = IPv6 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Original IPv6 Packet | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + Figure 6: IPv6 and LISP-gpe + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 9] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + + 0 1 2 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |N|L|E|V|I|1|0|0|0| Reserved | NP = Ethernet | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Original Ethernet Frame | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + + + Figure 7: Ethernet and LISP-gpe + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 10] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +6. Security Considerations + + LISP-gpe security considerations are similar to the LISP security + considerations documented at length in LISP [RFC6830]. With LISP- + gpe, issues such as dataplane spoofing, flooding, and traffic + redirection are dependent on the particular protocol payload + encapsulated. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 11] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +7. Acknowledgments + + A special thank you goes to Dino Farinacci for his guidance and + detailed review. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 12] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +8. IANA Considerations + + IANA is requested to set up a registry of "Next Protocol". These are + 8-bit values. Next Protocol values 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are defined in + this draft. New values are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. + + +---------------+-------------+---------------+ + | 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..253 | Unassigned | | + +---------------+-------------+---------------+ + + Table 1 + + There are ten bits at the beginning of the LISP-gpe header. New + bits are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. + + Bits 0-3 - Assigned by LISP [RFC6830] + Bit 4 - Instance ID (I bit) + Bit 5 - Next Protocol (P bit) + Bit 6 - Reserved + Bit 7 - OAM (O bit) + Bits 8-9 - Version + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 13] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +9. References + +9.1. Normative References + + [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, + August 1980. + + [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, + September 1981. + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an + IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, + May 2008. + +9.2. Informative References + + [ETYPES] The IEEE Registration Authority, "IEEE 802 Numbers", 2012, + <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ + ieee-802-numbers.xml>. + + [IEEE8021Q] + The IEEE Computer Society, "Media Access Control (MAC) + Bridges and Virtual Bridge Local Area Networks", August + 2012, <http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/ + 802.1Q-2011.pdf>. + + [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, + October 1994. + + [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The + Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, + January 2013. + + [RFC6834] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID + Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 6834, + January 2013. + + [VXLAN] Dutt, D., Mahalingam, M., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger, + L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "VXLAN: A + Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over + Layer 3 Networks", 2013. + + + + + + + +Lewis, et al. Expires January 5, 2015 [Page 14] + +Internet-Draft LISP Generic Protocol Extension July 2014 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Darrel Lewis + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: darlewis@cisco.com + + + Puneet Agarwal + Broadcom + + Email: pagarwal@broadcom.com + + + Larry Kreeger + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: kreeger@cisco.com + + + Fabio Maino + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: fmaino@cisco.com + + + Paul Quinn + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: paulq@cisco.com + + + Michael Smith + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: michsmit@cisco.com + + + Navindra Yadav + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + Email: nyadav@cisco.com |