Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 8113 C. Jacquenet
Updates: 6830 Orange
Category: Experimental March 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP):
Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for Packet Type Allocations
Abstract
This document specifies a LISP Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting
experiments without consuming a LISP packet type codepoint for each
extension. It also defines a registry for Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) LISP Packet Type
allocations, thus updating RFC 6830.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the 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 a candidate for any level of
Internet 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 be obtained at
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
5.1. LISP Packet Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
5.2. Sub-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
6.1. Normative references References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification,
[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
[RFC8111],
[LISP-DDT], [LISP-MN-EXT], [LISP-BULK], [NAT-LISP], or
[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
Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 5.2).
The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the
message is specified in the corresponding specification document.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues other
than those discussed in [RFC6830].
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. LISP Packet Types
IANA has created a new protocol registry for LISP Packet Types,
numbered 0-15. The registry is 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 [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.
5.2. Sub-Types
IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type 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 of contact, contact; providing a short
description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen
usage of the extension message is also encouraged.
6. References
6.1. Normative references References
[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
[LISP-BULK]
Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "LISP Mapping Bulk
Retrieval", Work in Progress, draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-
04,
draft-boucadair-lisp-bulk-04, February 2017.
[LISP-DDT]
Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-09, January 2017.
[LISP-MN-EXT]
Wang, J., Meng, Y., and N. Zhao, "LISP Mobile Node
extension", Work in Progress, draft-zhao-lisp-mn-
extension-02,
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.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111,
DOI 10.17487/RFC81111, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8111>.
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
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com