Network Working GroupInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. BoucadairInternet-DraftRequest for Comments: 8113 C. Jacquenet Updates: 6830(if approved)OrangeIntended status:Category: ExperimentalFebruary 2, 2017 Expires: August 6,March 2017LISPISSN: 2070-1721 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry forLISPPacket Type Allocationsdraft-ietf-lisp-type-iana-06Abstract This documentdefinesspecifies aregistry forLocator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)Packet Type allocations. It also specifies a LISPshared message type for defining future extensions and conducting experiments without consuming a LISP packet type codepoint for each extension.This document updates RFC6830 by definingIt also defines a registry for LISP PacketTypes assignments. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described inType allocations, thus updating RFC2119 [RFC2119].6830. Status of This Memo ThisInternet-Draftdocument issubmitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, andBCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documentsevaluation. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The listIt represents the consensus ofcurrent Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents validthe IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are amaximumcandidate for any level ofsix monthsInternet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beupdated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documentsobtained atany 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 August 6, 2017.http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8113. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4.1.4 5.1. LISP Packet Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4.2.4 5.2. Sub-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45. Acknowledgments6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 6.. . 5 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . .4 6.1. Normative references. . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . .4 6.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 1. Introduction The Locator/ID Separation Protocol(LISP, [RFC6830])(LISP) basespecificationspecification, [RFC6830], defines a set of primitives that are identified with a packet type code. Several extensions have been proposed to add more LISP functionalities. For example, new message types are proposed in[I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt], [I-D.zhao-lisp-mn-extension], [I-D.boucadair-lisp-bulk], [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal],[LISP-DDT], [LISP-MN-EXT], [LISP-BULK], [NAT-LISP], or[I-D.boucadair-lisp-subscribe].[LISP-SUBSCRIBE]. It is expected that additional LISP extensions will be proposed in the future. In order to ease the tracking of LISP message types, this document proposes to create a "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section4).5). Because of the limited type space [RFC6830] and the need to conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this document specifies a shared LISP extension message type and proposes a procedure for registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see Section2).3). Concretely, one single LISP message type code is dedicated to future LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely identify a given LISP extension making use of the shared LISP extension message type. These identifiers are selected by the author(s) of the corresponding LISP specification that introduces a new LISP extension message type. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension message. The type field MUST be set to 15 (see Section4).5). 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=15| Sub-type | extension-specific | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // extension-specific // // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type The "Sub-type" field conveys a unique identifier that MUST be registered with IANA (see Section4.2).5.2). The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the message is specified in the corresponding specification document.3.4. Security Considerations This document does not introduce any additional security issues other than those discussed in [RFC6830].4.5. IANA Considerations4.1.5.1. LISP Packet Types IANAis requested to createhas created a new protocol registry for LISP Packet Types, numbered 0-15. The registrymust beis initially populated with the following values: Message Code Reference ================================= ==== =============== Reserved 0 [RFC6830] LISP Map-Request 1 [RFC6830] LISP Map-Reply 2 [RFC6830] LISP Map-Register 3 [RFC6830] LISP Map-Notify 4 [RFC6830] LISP Encapsulated Control Message 8 [RFC6830] LISP Shared Extension Message 15[This document][RFC8113] The values in the ranges 5-7 and 9-14 can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226]. Documents that request for a new LISP packet type may indicate a preferred value in the corresponding IANA sections.4.2.5.2. Sub-Types IANAis requested to create ahas created the "LISP Shared Extension MessagetypeType Sub-types" registry. No initial values are assigned at the creation of the registry; (0-4095) are available for future assignments. The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the exhaustion of the LISP Packet types. The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure should provide IANA with the desired codepoint and a point ofcontact. Providingcontact; providing a short description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen usage of the extension message is also encouraged.5. Acknowledgments This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR- 009-X. Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for the review. Thanks to Geoff Huston for the RtgDir directorate review.6. References 6.1. NormativereferencesReferences [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>. 6.2. Informative References[I-D.boucadair-lisp-bulk][LISP-BULK] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "LISP Mapping Bulk Retrieval",draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-03 (work in progress), July 2016. [I-D.boucadair-lisp-subscribe] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "LISP Subscription", draft-boucadair-lisp-subscribe-03 (workWork inprogress), July 2016. [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino, F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan- lisp-nat-traversal-11 (work in progress), August 2016. [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]Progress, draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-04, February 2017. [LISP-DDT] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A. Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree",draft-ietf-lisp- ddt-09 (workWork inprogress),Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-09, January 2017.[I-D.zhao-lisp-mn-extension][LISP-MN-EXT] Wang, J., Meng, Y., and N. Zhao, "LISP Mobile Node extension",draft-zhao-lisp-mn-extension-02 (workWork inprogress),Progress, draft-zhao-lisp-mn-extension-02, October 2011. [LISP-SUBSCRIBE] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "LISP Subscription", Work in Progress, draft-boucadair-lisp-subscribe-04, February 2017. [NAT-LISP] Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino, F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", Work in Progress, draft-ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal-11, August 2016. Acknowledgments This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR- 009-X. Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for the review. Thanks to Geoff Huston for the RtgDir directorate review. Authors' Addresses Mohamed Boucadair Orange Rennes 35000 FranceEMail:Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Christian Jacquenet Orange Rennes 35000 FranceEMail:Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com