wdiff rfc9300.original rfc9300.txt

Network Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9300 lispers.net
Obsoletes: 6830 (if approved) V. Fuller
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track vaf.net Internet Consulting
Expires: May 22, 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Meyer
1-4-5.net
D. Lewis
Cisco Systems
A. Cabellos (Ed.)
UPC/BarcelonaTech
November 18, 2020 Cabellos, Ed.
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
October 2022

The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-36

Abstract

This document describes the Data-Plane data plane protocol for the Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP). LISP defines two namespaces, End-point namespaces: Endpoint
Identifiers (EIDs) that (EIDs), which identify end-hosts end hosts; and Routing Locators
(RLOCs) that
(RLOCs), which identify network attachment points. With this, LISP
effectively separates control from data, data and allows routers to create
overlay networks. LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.

LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or to underlay
routers and offers Traffic Engineering, multihoming Engineering (TE), multihoming, and
mobility, among other features.

This document obsoletes RFC 6830.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

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 list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 May 22, 2021.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Simplified Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Packet Flow Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. LISP Encapsulation Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP . . . . . . . 23
9. Routing Locator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. Routing Locator Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1. Echo Nonce Echo-Nonce Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. Routing Locator Hashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings . . . . . . . . 30
13.1. Locator-Status-Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13.2. Database Map-Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
15. Router Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
17. Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
18. Changes since RFC 6830 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix A.
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 41
B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27 . . . . . . . . 41
B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 . . . . . . . . 41
B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25 . . . . . . . . 42
B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24 . . . . . . . . 42
B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23 . . . . . . . . 42
B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22 . . . . . . . . 42
B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21 . . . . . . . . 42
B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20 . . . . . . . . 42
B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19 . . . . . . . . 42
B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18 . . . . . . . . 43
B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17 . . . . . . . . 43
B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16 . . . . . . . . 43
B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15 . . . . . . . . 43
B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14 . . . . . . . . 43
B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13 . . . . . . . . 43
B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12 . . . . . . . . 44
B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11 . . . . . . . . 44
B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10 . . . . . . . . 44
B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09 . . . . . . . . 44
B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08 . . . . . . . . 45
B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07 . . . . . . . . 45
B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06 . . . . . . . . 45
B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05 . . . . . . . . 45
B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04 . . . . . . . . 46
B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03 . . . . . . . . 46
B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02 . . . . . . . . 46
B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01 . . . . . . . . 46
B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00 . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1. Introduction

This document describes the Locator/Identifier Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).
LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea
of separating the topological location of a network attachment point
from the node's identity [CHIAPPA]. As a result result, LISP creates two
namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), that which are used to identify end-hosts
end hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines) Machines); and routable Routing
Locators (RLOCs), which are used to identify network attachment
points. LISP then defines functions for mapping between the two
namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by devices using
non-routable EIDs for transport across a network infrastructure that
routes and forwards using RLOCs. LISP encapsulation uses a dynamic
form of tunneling where no static provisioning is required or
necessary.

LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from Data-Plane, data; this
document specifies the Data-Plane data plane as well as how LISP-capable routers
(Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the
appropriate location. Tunnel routers Routers are equipped with a cache,
called the Map-Cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings. The Map-Cache Map-
Cache is populated using the LISP Control-Plane control plane protocol
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301].

LISP does not require changes to either the host protocol stack or to
underlay routers. By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP
offers native Traffic Engineering, multihoming Engineering (TE), multihoming, and mobility,
among other features.

Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
October 2006 (see [RFC4984]).

This document specifies the LISP Data-Plane data plane encapsulation and other
LISP forwarding node functionality while [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [RFC9301] specifies the LISP
control plane. LISP deployment guidelines can be found in [RFC7215] [RFC7215],
and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network operational
management. Finally, [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction] [RFC9299] describes the LISP architecture.

This document obsoletes RFC 6830.

1.1. Scope of Applicability

LISP was originally developed to address the Internet-wide route
scaling problem [RFC4984]. While there are a number of approaches of
interest for that problem, as LISP as has been developed and refined, a
large number of other ways to use LISP uses have been found and are being used.
implemented. As such, the design and development of LISP has have
changed so as to focus on these use cases. The common property of
these uses is a large set of cooperating entities seeking to
communicate over the public Internet or other large underlay IP infrastructures,
infrastructures while keeping the addressing and topology of the
cooperating entities separate from the underlay and Internet
topology, routing, and addressing.

2. Requirements Notation

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.

3. Definition Definitions of Terms

Address Family Identifier (AFI): AFI "AFI" is a term used to describe an
address encoding in a packet. An address family that pertains to
addresses is an address
format found in Data-Plane headers. data plane packet headers, for example, an IPv4
address or an IPv6 address. See [AFN] [AFN], [RFC2453], [RFC2677], and [RFC3232]
[RFC4760] for details. An AFI value of 0 used in this
specification indicates an unspecified encoded address where the
length of the address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value
of 0.

Anycast Address: Anycast Address "Anycast address" refers to the same IPv4 or IPv6
address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time.
An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own
address spaces.

Client-side: Client-side "Client-side" is a term used in this document to
indicate a connection initiation attempt by an end-system
represented by an EID.

Egress Tunnel Router (ETR): An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
one of its own RLOCs. The router strips the "outer" header and
forwards the packet based on the next IP header found. In
general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
end-systems on the other side. ETR functionality does not have to
be limited to a router device. A server host can be the endpoint
of a LISP tunnel as well.

EID-to-RLOC Database: The EID-to-RLOC Database is a distributed
database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings.
Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the
database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind"
the router. These map to one of the router's own IP addresses
that are routable on the underlay. Note that there MAY be
transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP site and
Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs.
This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators
can be used.

EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache: The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is a generally
short-lived, on-demand table in an ITR Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR)
that stores, tracks, and is responsible for timing out and
otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings. This cache is distinct
from the full "database" of EID-
to-RLOC EID-to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic,
local to the ITR(s), and relatively small, while the database is
distributed, relatively static, and much more widely scoped to
LISP nodes.

EID-Prefix: An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
allocated to a site by an address allocation authority. EID-
Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses. EID-Prefix
allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC set RLOC-Set
is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.

End-System: An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header. The end-system
supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
header when communicating outside of its routing domain. An end-
system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any
network appliance.

Endpoint ID (EID): An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
IPv6) value that identifies a host. EIDs are generally only found
in the source and destination address fields of the first (most
inner)
(innermost) LISP header of a packet. The host obtains a
destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address today, for
example, through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
This behavior does not change when LISP is in use. The source EID
is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local"
IP address. An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the same
properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this
means, among other things, that it MUST be unique. An EID is
allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block associated with the
site where the host is located. An EID can be used by a host to
refer to other hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a
hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
facilitate scaling of the mapping database. In addition, an EID
block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure
(subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
visible to the underlay routing system. In theory, the bit string
that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
different device. When used in discussions with discussing other Locator/ID separation
proposals, a LISP EID will be called an "LEID".
Throughout this document, any references to "EID" an EID in this document will refer to an
LEID.
a LISP EID.

Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR): An ITR is a router that resides in a
LISP site. Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
by the ITR. The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. The router then
prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
mapping lookup in the destination address field. Note that this
destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has
better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
destination EID. In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
toward the Internet on the other side.

LISP Header: LISP header "LISP header" is a term used in this document to refer
to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
specific 8-octet header that header, all of which follow the UDP header and that an header. An
ITR prepends or LISP headers on packets, and an ETR strips. strips them.

LISP Router: A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
of any or all of the following: ITR, ETR, RTR, Proxy-ITR (PITR), ITRs, ETRs, Re-encapsulating
Tunneling Routers (RTRs), Proxy-ITRs (PITRs), or Proxy-ETR (PETR). Proxy-ETRs
(PETRs).

LISP Site: A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
are under a single technical administration. LISP routers that
reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
the edge network from the core network.

Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
LISP header. They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
down status of all ETRs at the local site. These bits are used as
a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
status. The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
reachability algorithms described in Section 10. An ETR MUST
rate-limit rate
limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the
Locator-Status-Bits. Locator-
Status-Bits.

Proxy-ETR (PETR): A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.

Proxy-ITR (PITR): A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832]. A
PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
send packets to destinations at LISP sites.

Recursive Tunneling: Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
more than one LISP IP header. Additional layers of tunneling MAY
be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other re-routing rerouting as
needed. When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header is
added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" header.

Re-Encapsulating

Re-encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR): An RTR acts like an ETR to
remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
header. This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling. Doing this
allows a packet to be re-routed rerouted by the RTR without adding the
overhead of additional tunnel headers. When using multiple
mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-
encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.

Route-Returnability: Route-returnability is an assumption that the
underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.
When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion. A
route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
destination of the original message appears as the source of the
returned message.

Routing Locator (RLOC): An RLOC is an IPv4 address [RFC0791] or IPv6
[RFC8200]
address [RFC8200] of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR). An RLOC is
the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup. An EID maps to zero
or more RLOCs. Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are
assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the
underlay network; network, where the topology is defined by the
connectivity of provider networks. Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.

Server-side: Server-side "Server-side" is a term used in this document to
indicate that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted
for a destination EID.

xTR: An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
flow is not part of the context description. "xTR" refers to the
router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
the term "Tunnel Router". For example, "An xTR can be located at
the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
functionality at the CE router.

4. Basic Overview

One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way they
do today. when
LISP is not in use as well as when LISP is in use. The IP addresses
that hosts use for tracking sockets and connections, and for sending
and receiving packets, do not change. In LISP terminology, these IP
addresses are called Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs).

Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
addresses. When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
referred to as Routing Locators (RLOCs). RLOCs. Most routers along a path between two hosts
will not change; they continue to perform routing/
forwarding routing/forwarding lookups
on the destination addresses. For routers between the source host
and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the destination host,
the destination address is an EID. For the routers between the ITR
and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.

Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router". A Tunnel Router
prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
prior to final delivery to their destination. The IP addresses in
this "outer header" are RLOCs. During end-to-end packet exchange
between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
packet, and an ETR strips the new header. The ITR performs EID-to-
RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the
RLOC as one of its IP addresses.

Some basic rules governing LISP are:

* End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs. EIDs are
typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EID EIDs are
supported by LISP, LISP; see [RFC8060] for further information). End-
systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume
that packets get to their intended destinations. In a system
where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed
packets and assist in delivering them across the network core
where EIDs cannot be routed. The procedure a host uses to send IP
packets does not change.

* LISP routers mostly deal prepend and strip outer headers with Routing Locator RLOC addresses.
See
details in Section 4.2 to clarify what is meant by "mostly".

o for details.

* RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
topologically oriented addresses from provider CIDR (Classless
Inter-Domain Routing) Classless Inter-
Domain Routing (CIDR) blocks.

* When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address
either an EID or RLOC. When acting as a host (e.g., when
terminating a transport session such as Secure SHell Shell (SSH),
TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose. An EID
that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
an EID is only routable within the scope of a site. A typical BGP
configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate iBGP internal BGP
(iBGP) sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time
using RLOCs to terminate eBGP external BGP (eBGP) sessions to routers
outside the site.

* Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end-to- end to
end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation. They are
expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be
encapsulated for inter-site communication.

* EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).

An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
when re-routing rerouting of the path for a packet is desired. A potential
use-case use
case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform Traffic
Engineering for packets flowing through its network. In such a
situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new
prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an
intra-ISP traffic engineered traffic-engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an
inter-ISP traffic engineered traffic-engineered path, where an agreement to build such a
path exists).

In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
encapsulation loops, this document RECOMMENDS it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP
headers can be prepended to a packet. For initial LISP deployments,
it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the first
prepended header is used at a site for Location/Identity separation of location and
identity and the second prepended header is used inside a service
provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.

Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
host. Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
connected to the destination host. Another As another example, perhaps for a
VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.

4.1. Deployment on the Public Internet

Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for
deployment in controlled, trusted environments, environments and are insecure for
use over the public Internet. In particular, on the public internet Internet,
xTRs:

* MUST set the N, L, E, N-, L-, E-, and V bits V-bits in the LISP header
(Section 5.1) to zero.

* MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and echo-nonce, Echo-Nonce, as described in
Section 10 10, for Routing Locator Reachability. Instead RLOC reachability. Instead, they MUST rely solely
on control-plane control plane methods.

* MUST NOT use Gleaning gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning,
as described in Section 13 13, to update the EID-to-RLOC Mappings.
Instead relying mappings.
Instead, they MUST rely solely on control-plane control plane methods.

4.2. Packet Flow Sequence

This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow,
including also Control-Plane
including control plane information as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301]. The
example also assumes the following conditions:

* Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
"host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not
not
using LISP.

* Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
(RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.

* The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
located anywhere in the LISP site.

* A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the
destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a
default route. Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database
system by using the LISP Control-Plane control plane protocol documented in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

o
[RFC9301].

* Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology topology,
using the [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Control-Plane protocol. control plane protocol [RFC9301].

Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server
host2.xyz.example.com:

1. host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
host2.xyz.example.com. It does a DNS lookup on
host2.xyz.example.com. An A/AAAA record is returned. This
address is the destination EID. The locally assigned address of
host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID. An IPv4 or IPv6
packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.

2. The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
of one of the ETRs at the destination site. A method to do for doing
this is to send a LISP Map-Request, as specified in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301].

3. The mapping system Mapping System helps forwarding forward the Map-Request to the
corresponding ETR. When the Map-Request arrives at one of the
ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
control message.

4. The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to-
RLOC mapping database. This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR
is supporting for the site it resides in. If there is no match,
the Map-Request is dropped. Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is
returned to the ITR.

5. The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message, and
stores the mapping information from the packet. This information
is stored in the ITR's EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache. Note that the Map-
Cache is an on-demand cache. An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in
such a way that optimizes for its resource constraints.

6. Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the
ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
address learned from the ETR. Note that the packet MAY be sent
to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
Locator-Set policy.

7. The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
the attached destination host.

8. In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
direction, it is OPTIONAL for an ETR can OPTIONALLY to create a cache entry that
maps the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the
source RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP
packet. Such a cache entry is termed a "glean mapping" and only
contains a single RLOC for the EID in question. More complete
information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending
a LISP Map-
Request Map-Request for that EID. Both the ITR and the ETR MAY
also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC.

5. LISP Encapsulation Details

Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to
the ETR. It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get
fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR. Instead, the packet
is dropped and an ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed ICMPv4 Unreachable / Fragmentation Needed message
is returned to the source.

In the case when fragmentation is needed, this specification
RECOMMENDS it is RECOMMENDED that
implementations provide support for one of the proposed fragmentation
and reassembly schemes. Two existing schemes are detailed in
Section 7.

Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6
packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header
is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
format). The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
combinations MUST be supported. Additional types of EIDs are defined
in [RFC8060].

As LISP uses UDP encapsulation to carry traffic between xTRs across
the Internet, implementors should be aware of the provisions of
[RFC8085], especially those given in section its Section 3.1.11 on congestion
control for UDP tunneling.

Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines
in section Section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect UDP and
LISP headers against corruption.

5.1. LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
OH | Time to Live | Protocol = 17 | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source Routing Locator |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination Routing Locator |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| IHL | DSCP |ECN| Total Length |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IH | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Source EID |
\ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | Destination EID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

IHL = IP-Header-Length

5.2. LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Payload Length | Next Header=17| Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
O + +
u | |
t + Source Routing Locator +
e | |
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
r + +
| |
^ + Destination Routing Locator +
| | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = 4341 |
UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
S / | Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
P +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ |Version| DSCP |ECN| Flow Label |
/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit |
v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
I + +
n | |
n + Source EID +
e | |
r + +
| |
H +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
d | |
r + +
| |
^ + Destination EID +
\ | |
\ + +
\ | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5.3. Tunnel Header Field Descriptions

Inner Header (IH): The inner header is the header on the datagram
received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] [RFC2474].
The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.

Outer Header: (OH) Header (OH): The outer header is a new header prepended by an
ITR. The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
router's EID-to-RLOC Cache. Map-Cache. The IP protocol number is "UDP
(17)" from [RFC0768]. The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and
7.2.

UDP Header: The UDP header contains an ITR selected ITR-selected source port when
encapsulating a packet. See Section 12 for details on the hash
algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the
inner header. The destination port MUST be set to the well-known
IANA-assigned port value 4341.

UDP Checksum: The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] and or IPv6 encapsulation
[RFC6935] [RFC6936]. When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
decapsulation. When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
choose to verify the checksum value. If it chooses to perform
such verification, verification and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
silently dropped. If the ETR either chooses not to perform the
verification,
verification or performs the verification successfully, the packet
MUST be accepted for decapsulation. The handling of UDP zero
checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including LISP,
is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].

UDP Length: The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
the UDP and LISP header lengths. For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
the UDP and LISP headers.

N: The N-bit is the nonce-present bit. When this bit is set to 1,
the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
contain a Nonce. nonce. See Section 10.1 for details. Both N- and
V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet. If they are, a
decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
having a Nonce nonce value present.

L: The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit. When
this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
32 bits of the LISP header are in use.

x 1 x x 0 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

E: The E-bit is the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce-request bit. This bit MUST be
ignored and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0. When the
N-bit is set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting
that the nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR. See
Section 10.1 for details.

V: The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit. When this bit is set
to 1, the N-bit MUST be 0. Refer to Section 13.2 [RFC9302] for more details. details on
Database Map-Versioning. This bit indicates that the LISP header
is encoded in this case as:

0 x 0 1 x x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Source Map-Version | Dest Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I: The I-bit is the Instance ID bit. See Section 8 for more
details. When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits'
field is reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as
an Instance ID. If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order
8 bits are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt. The format
of the LISP header would look like this:

x x x x 1 x x x
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K| Nonce/Map-Version |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Instance ID | LSBs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

R: The R-bit is a Reserved reserved and unassigned bit for future use. It
MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

KK: The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are
encrypted. The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
encrypted. See [RFC8061] for further information.

LISP Nonce: The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1. Nonce
generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
required to generate different nonces when sending to different
RLOCs. The nonce is also used when the E-bit is set to request
the nonce value to be echoed by the other side when packets are
returned. When the E-bit is clear but the N-bit is set, a remote
ITR is either echoing a previously requested echo-nonce Echo-Nonce or
providing a random nonce. See Section 10.1 for more details.
Finally, when both the N N- and V-bit V-bits are not set (N=0, V=0), then
both the Nonce 'Nonce' and Map-Version 'Map-Version' fields are set to 0 and ignored
on receipt.

LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs): When the L-bit is also set, the
'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
source site. Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
significant bit of the field. The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1. When a
Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status. See
Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
the ETRs at the same site. When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
that the inner-header source EID address matches (longest-match).
If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at
least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.

When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

* The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
Live' field.

* The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) Point (DSCP)'
field or the (or 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6, IPv6) SHOULD be
copied from the inner-header IPv4 DSCP 'DSCP' field or (or 'Traffic Class'
field
field, in the case of IPv6, IPv6) to the outer-header. outer header. Guidelines for
this can be found at in [RFC2983].

* The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) Notification (ECN)' field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field requires require special treatment
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
specified in [RFC6040].

When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

* The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field or (or 'Hop Limit' field field,
in the case of IPv6, IPv6) MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
Live'/'Hop Limit' field, field when the 'Time Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' Live / Hop Limit value of
the outer header is less than the 'Time Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' Live / Hop Limit value
of the inner header. Failing to perform this check can cause the 'Time
Time to Live'/'Hop Limit' Live / Hop Limit of the inner header to increment across
encapsulation/decapsulation cycles. This check is also performed
when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or
PITR destined for a LISP site.

* The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point' (DSCP) Point (DSCP)'
field or the (or 'Traffic Class' field field, in the case of IPv6, IPv6) SHOULD be
copied from the outer-header IPv4 DSCP 'IPv4 DSCP' field or (or 'Traffic Class'
field
field, in the case of IPv6, IPv6) to the inner-header. inner header. Guidelines for
this can be found at in [RFC2983].

* The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) Notification (ECN)' field and bits 6
and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field, requires field require special treatment
in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
specified in [RFC6040]. Note that implementations exist that copy
the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header header, even
though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior. It is
RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior
discussed in [RFC6040].

Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
header minus 1.

Copying the Time to Live (TTL) serves two purposes: first, it preserves the
distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more
importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the
event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
misconfiguration.

Some xTRs xTRs, PETRs, and PxTRs performs PITRs perform re-encapsulation operations and
need to treat the 'Explicit Congestion Notification' (ECN) ECN functions in a special way. Because the re-encapsulation re-
encapsulation operation is a sequence of two operations, namely a
decapsulation followed by an encapsulation, the ECN bits MUST be
treated as described above for these two operations.

The LISP dataplane data plane protocol is not backwards compatible with
[RFC6830] and does not have explicit support for introducing future
protocol changes (e.g. (e.g., an explicit version field). However, the
LISP control plane [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [RFC9301] allows an ETR to register
dataplane data plane
capabilities by means of new LCAF LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
types [RFC8060]. In this
way way, an ITR can be made aware of the dataplane data
plane capabilities of an ETR, ETR and encapsulate accordingly. The
specification of the new LCAF types, the new LCAF mechanisms, and
their use, is use are out of the scope of this document.

6. LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache

ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred to as the LISP EID-to-
RLOC
EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-prefixes EID-Prefixes to locator
sets.
Locator-Sets. The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID
space to the corresponding RLOC network attachment point.

When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to
destinations outside of the site site, a longest-prefix match lookup of
the EID is done to the Map-Cache.

When the lookup succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from the Map-
Cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location.

If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using
the LISP Control-Plane control plane protocol [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301]. While the mapping is
being retrieved, the ITR/PITR can either drop or buffer the packets.
This document does not have specific recommendations about the action
to be taken. It is up to the deployer to consider whether or not it
is desirable to buffer packets and deploy a LISP implementation that
offers the desired behaviour. behavior. Once the mapping is resolved resolved, it is
then stored in the local Map-Cache to forward subsequent packets
addressed to the same EID-prefix. EID-Prefix.

The Map-Cache is a local cache of mappings, mappings; entries are expired based
on the associated Time to live. Live. In addition, entries can be updated
with more current information, information; see Section 13 for further information
on this. Finally, the Map-Cache also contains reachability
information about EIDs and RLOCs, RLOCs and uses LISP reachability
information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs, RLOCs; see
Section 10 for the specific mechanisms.

7. Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets

This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed
the path Path MTU (PMTU) between the ITR and ETR.

It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
mechanism SHOULD be implemented. Both or neither can be used, since
it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.

Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
also apply to a TE-ITR.

7.1. A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling

An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows:

1. Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
prepends to a packet. This includes the UDP and LISP header
lengths.

2. Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
intermediate routers to fragment the packet. The network
administrator of the LISP deployment has to determine what is the
suitable value of L is, so as to make sure that no MTU issues
arise.

3. Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the
effective MTU can be met. That is, L = S + H.

When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets
from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the
original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments. A LISP header is then
prepended to each fragment. The size of the encapsulated fragments
is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the path
MTU PMTU
between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.

When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
individually encapsulated packets. It strips the LISP headers and
then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
destination site. The two fragments are reassembled at the
destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
the source host. Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.

This behavior MUST be performed implemented by the ITR only when the source
host originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to
0. When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1, 1 or the packet is
an IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the
packet when the size (adding in the size of the encapsulation header)
is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 ICMP Unreachable/Fragmentation- Unreachable / Fragmentation
Needed or ICMPv6 "Packet Packet Too Big" Big (PTB) message to the source with a
value of S, where S is (L - H).

When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
can be avoided. An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable path MTU PMTU
issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.

This specification RECOMMENDS

It is RECOMMENDED that L be defined as 1500. Additional information
about in-network MTU and fragmentation issues can be found at in
[RFC4459].

7.2. A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling

An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as
follows:

1. The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
Map-Cache entry. The effective MTU is what the core network can
deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.

2. When an IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1, 1 exceeds
what the core network can deliver, one of the intermediate
routers on the path will send an an ICMPv4
Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed Unreachable /
Fragmentation Needed message to the ITR, respectively. ITR. The ITR will parse the
ICMP message to determine which Locator is affected by the
effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value
in the Map-Cache entry.

3. When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv4 ICMP
Unreachable/Fragmentation-Needed Unreachable /
Fragmentation Needed message back to the source. The packet size
advertised by the ITR in the ICMP message is the effective MTU
minus the LISP encapsulation length.

Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.

Please note that [RFC1191] and [RFC1981], which describe the use of using ICMP packets for PMTU discovery, as described
in [RFC1191] and [RFC8201], can behave suboptimally result in suboptimal behavior in the
presence of ICMP black holes packet losses or off-path attackers that spoof ICMP.
Possible mitigations include ITRs and ETRs cooperating on MTU probe
packets ([RFC4821], [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud]), [RFC4821] [RFC8899] or ITRs storing the beginning of large
packets to verify that they match the echoed packet in an ICMP Frag Needed/PTB.
Fragmentation Needed / PTB message.

8. Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP

There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level.
For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping
addresses, traffic isolation policies policies, or multi-tenant
virtualization. For these and other scenarios where segregation is
needed, Instance IDs are used.

An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet. An ITR
that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
router to uniquely identify the address space. The value is copied
to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
to 1.

When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
to use for the inner destination EID lookup.

For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
24-bit Instance ID. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] [LISP-VPN] for details regarding LISP VPN use-case
details.
use cases. Please note that the Instance ID is not protected, protected; an on-
path attacker can modify the tags and and, for instance, allow
communicatons
communications between logically isolated VLANs.

Participants within a LISP deployment must agree on the meaning of
Instance ID values. The source and destination EIDs MUST belong to
the same Instance ID.

The Instance ID SHOULD NOT be used with overlapping IPv6 EID
addresses.

9. Routing Locator Selection

The Map-Cache contains the state used by ITRs and PITRs to
encapsulate packets. When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside
the LISP site to a destination outside of the site site, a longest-prefix
match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache (see Section 6).
The lookup returns a single Locator-Set containing a list of RLOCs
corresponding to the EID's topological location. Each RLOC in the
Locator-Set is associated with a 'Priority' Priority and 'Weight', Weight; this
information is used to select the RLOC to encapsulate.

The RLOC with the lowest 'Priority' Priority is selected. An RLOC with
'Priority' Priority
255 means that it MUST NOT be used for forwarding. When multiple
RLOCs have the same 'Priority' Priority, then the 'Weight' Weight states how to load load-
balance traffic among them. The value of the 'Weight' Weight represents the
relative weight of the total packets that match the mapping entry.

The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
controls that are available:

* The server-side returns one RLOC. The client-side can only use
one RLOC. The server-side has complete control of the selection.

* The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
has the same best Priority. The client can only use the subset
list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side. In
this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load- load
splitting across its members. The client-side can use RLOCs
outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255). Some
sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
list are unreachable.

* The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list.
In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
spread across the subset list. See Section 12 for details on
load-sharing mechanisms. Control is shared by the server-side
determining the list and the client-side determining load
distribution. Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.

* Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean"
the RLOCs. For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then
the client-side ITR gives the client-side ITR server-side ETR responsibility for
bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability. Server-side
ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the
inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of
received packets. The client-side ITR controls how traffic is
returned and can alternate using can, as an alternative, use an outer-header source
RLOC, which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses
to return traffic. Since no Priority or Weights are provided
using this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each
client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of
zero. In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed
in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Cache Map-Cache on Tunnel Routers can
grow to be very large. Gleaning has several important considerations.
A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry is only stored and used for a
RECOMMENDED period of 3 seconds, pending verification.
Verification MUST be performed by sending a Map-Request to the
source EID (the inner-header IP source address) of the received
encapsulated packet. A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is
used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID
and is stored and used for the time indicated from in the 'TTL' 'Time to
Live' field of a received Map-Reply. When a verified Map- Cache Map-Cache
entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent
packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the
verified entry. This "gleaning" mechanism MUST NOT be used over
the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed
deployments. Refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding
this mechanism.

RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
reachable when the R-bit [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [RFC9301] for the Locator record is set to
1. When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate
to the RLOC. Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor
that stored in the mapping database system provides reachability
information for RLOCs. Note that reachability is not part of the mapping system
Mapping System and is determined using one or more of the
Routing Locator RLOC
reachability algorithms described in the next section.

10. Routing Locator Reachability

Several Data-Plane data plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are
currently defined. Please note that additional Control-Plane based reachability
mechanisms based on the control plane are defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301].

1. An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR. If the ETR is
also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
RLOC.

2. When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely to be
reachable. Please note that in some scenarios the RLOC from the
outer header can be an a spoofable field.

3. An ITR/ETR pair can use the 'Echo-Noncing' Echo-Noncing Locator reachability
algorithms described in this section.

When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
will receive an up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
reachability for all ETRs at the site. CE-based ITRs at the source
site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
IGP as follows:

* Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
route into the site IGP.

* If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its PE Provider Edge
fails, its default route will either time out or be withdrawn.

Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
for them.

When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided
they are injected into the IGP. This is typically done when a /32
address is configured on a loopback interface.

RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1. The
Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
to n-1 starting with the least significant bit. For example, if an
RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal
value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
the packets they encapsulate.

When an xTR decides to use 'Locator-Status-Bits' Locator-Status-Bits to affect reachability
information, it acts as follows: ETRs decapsulating a packet will
check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field. When a bit
goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if acting also acting as an ITR, will refrain
from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down. It
will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding
Locator-Status-Bit Locator-Status-
Bit returns to a value of 1. Locator-Status-Bits are associated with
a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix. Therefore, when a Locator becomes
unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that
Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply will be
set to zero for that particular EID-Prefix.

Locator-Status-Bits MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and
SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments. In addition addition,
Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning
(Section 13.2) [RFC9302]
to prevent race conditions where Locator-Status-Bits are interpreted
as referring to different RLOCs than intended. Refer to Section 16
for security issues regarding this mechanism.

If an ITR encapsulates a packet to an ETR and the packet is received
and decapsulated by the ETR, it is implied implied, but not confirmed by the
ITR
ITR, that the ETR's RLOC is reachable. In most cases, the ETR can
also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the
possibility of path asymmetry. In the presence of unidirectional
traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack
of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable.
Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine
reachability.

The security considerations of Section 16 related to data-plane data plane
reachability applies apply to the data-plane data plane RLOC reachability mechanisms
described in this section.

10.1. Echo Nonce Echo-Nonce Algorithm

When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different
sites, a Data-Plane data plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to
determine reachability between an ITR and ETR. When an ITR wants to
solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit
nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data
packet.

When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is
forwarded as normal. When the ETR is an xTR (co-located as an ITR),
it then sends a data packet to the ITR (when it is an xTR co-located
as an ETR), it ETR) and includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set
and E-bit cleared. The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that
the path to and from the ETR is up.

The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
in the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce-request state. The time the ITR waits to process
the echoed nonce before it determines that the path is unreachable is
variable and is a choice left for the implementation.

If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the
nonce echoed while being in the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce-request state, then the
path to the ETR is unreachable. This decision MAY be overridden by
other Locator reachability algorithms. Once the ITR determines that
the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for
that EID-Prefix.

Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here. Both devices MUST
be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the echo nonce Echo-Nonce
mechanism to operate.

The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce-request state at the
same time. The number of packets sent or the time during which echo
nonce requests Echo-
Nonce request packets are sent is an implementation-specific setting.
In this case, an xTR receiving the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce request packets will
suspend the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce state and setup a 'echo-nonce-request-
state' set up an 'Echo-Nonce-request-state'
timer. After the 'echo-nonce-request-state' 'Echo-Nonce-request-state' timer expires expires, it will
resume the echo-nonce-request Echo-Nonce state.

This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path
reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional. That is, the
ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an ITR
that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is
unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.

The echo-nonce Echo-Nonce algorithm is bilateral. That is, if one side sets the
E-bit and the other side is not enabled for echo-noncing, Echo-Noncing, then the
echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
erroneously consider the Locator unreachable. An ITR SHOULD set the
E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled
for echo-noncing. Echo-Noncing. This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map-Reply
message.

Many implementations default to not advertising that they are echo-nonce Echo-
Nonce capable in Map-Reply messages messages, and so RLOC-probing RLOC-Probing tends to be
used for RLOC reachability.

The echo-nonce Echo-Nonce mechanism MUST NOT be used over the public Internet
and MUST only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to
Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism.

11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site

A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs. The hosts and
infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
mapping system.
Mapping System. One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
R-bit associated with its own Locator. And when the ETR is also an
ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data
header.

It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site
partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the
EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub-
ranges of the EID-Prefixes. Note that this is not a new problem
introduced by the LISP architecture. The At the time of this writing,
this problem exists today when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its
reachability upstream.

12. Routing Locator Hashing

When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message
that is stored in the Map-Cache of a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set
for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values
for each locator address. Routing Locator Address. When more than one best Priority
Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against
the corresponding Locators.

The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a
Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:

1. Either a source and destination address hash or the traditional commonly used
5-tuple hash can be used. The traditional commonly used 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses; source and
destination TCP, UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP) port numbers; and the IP protocol number field or IPv6
next-protocol fields of a packet that a host originates from
within a LISP site. When a packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP
packet, the source and destination addresses only from the header
are used to compute the hash.

2. Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.

3. The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
minus 1". Use the remainder to select the Locator in the
Locator-Set.

The specific hash algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of
scope for this document and does not prevent interoperability.

The Source source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the
same flow. Also note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the
source port number in the outer UDP header needs to be set.
Selecting a hashed value allows core routers that are attached to
Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets
across member links of such LAGs. Otherwise, core routers would see
a single flow, since packets have a source address of the ITR, for
packets that are originated by different EIDs at the source site. A
suggested setting for the source port number computed by an ITR is a
5-tuple hash function on the inner header, as described above. The
source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same
flow.

Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
balance packet load across members of a LAG. The 5-tuple hash
includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
is TCP or UDP. For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
encapsulation. In this scenario, when the outer header is IPv6, the
flow label MAY also be set following the procedures specified in
[RFC6438]. When the inner header is IPv6 then and the flow label is not
zero, it MAY be used to compute the hash.

13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings

Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
date mapping is to re-request the mapping. However, the ITRs do not
know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
which ITRs requested its their mappings. For scalability reasons, it is
desirable to maintain this approach approach, but implementors need to provide
a way for ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are
currently communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.

This section defines two Data-Plane data plane mechanism for updating EID-to-
RLOC mappings. Additionally, the Solicit-Map Request Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) Control-
Plane control
plane updating mechanism is specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301].

13.1. Locator-Status-Bits

Locator-Status-Bits (LSB) (LSBs) can also be used to keep track of the
Locator status (up or down) when EID-to-RLOC mappings are changing.
When LSB LSBs are used in a LISP deployment, all LISP tunnel routers Tunnel Routers MUST
implement both ITR and ETR capabilities (therefore (therefore, all tunnel routers Tunnel
Routers are effectively xTRs). In this section section, the term "source
xTR" is used to refer to the xTR setting the LSB and "destination
xTR" is used to refer to the xTR receiving the LSB. The procedure is
as follows:

First, when

1. When a Locator record is added or removed from the Locator-
Set, Locator-Set,
the source xTR will signal this by sending a Solicit-Map Request
(SMR) Control-Plane an SMR control plane
message [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] [RFC9301] to the destination xTR. At this point point, the
source xTR MUST NOT use the LSB
(L-bit = 0) field, when the L-bit is 0, since
the destination xTR site has outdated information. The source
xTR will setup set up a 'use-LSB' timer.

Second and as

2. As defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], [RFC9301], upon reception of the SMR message message, the
destination xTR will retrieve the updated EID-
to-RLOC EID-to-RLOC mappings by
sending a Map-Request.

And third, when

3. When the 'use-LSB' timer expires, the source xTR can use
again the LSB
again with the destination xTR to signal the Locator status (up
or down). The specific value for the 'use-LSB' timer depends on
the LISP deployment, deployment; the 'use-LSB' timer needs to be large enough
for the destination xTR to retreive retrieve the updated EID-to-RLOC
mappings. A RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5
minutes.

13.2. Database Map-Versioning

When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.

An ETR, when it sends ETR can send Map-Reply messages, conveys its own messages carrying a Map-Version
Number. Number
[RFC9302] in an EID-Record. This is known as the Destination Map-Version Map-
Version Number. ITRs include the Destination Map-Version Number in
packets they encapsulate to the site. When an ETR decapsulates a packet and
detects that the Destination Map-Version Number is less than the
current version for its mapping, the SMR procedure described in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] occurs.

An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map-
Version Number. This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.

When an ETR decapsulates a packet and detects that the Source Map-
Version Number is greater than the last Map-Version Number sent presented in a
Map-Reply from the ITR's site, the ETR will send a Map-Request to one EID-Records of the ETRs for the source site.

A Map-Version Number is used as Map-Register messages [RFC9301], a sequence number per EID-Prefix, so
values that are greater are considered to be more recent. A value of
0 for the Source Map-Version Number or the Destination Map-Version
Number conveys no versioning information, and an ITR does no
comparison with previously received Map-Version Numbers.

A
Map-Version Number can be included in Map-Register messages as
well. This is a good way for the Map-Server [RFC9301] to
assure that all ETRs for a site registering to it will be synchronized according to Map-
Version Number.

Map-Version requires that ETRs within the LISP site are synchronized
with respect
according to the Map-Version Number, EID-prefix and the set and
status (up/down) of the RLOCs. The use of Map-Versioning without
proper synchronization may cause traffic disruption. The
synchronization protocol is out-of-the-scope of this document, but
MUST keep ETRs synchronized within a 1 minute window.

Map-Versioning MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD
only be used in trusted and closed deployments. Refer to Section 16
for security issues regarding this mechanism. Number.

See [I-D.ietf-lisp-6834bis] [RFC9302] for a more detailed analysis and description of
Database Map-Versioning.

14. Multicast Considerations

A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
independent receiver host locations. The address encoding itself
does not determine the location of the receiver(s). The multicast
routing protocol, protocol and the network-based state the protocol creates, creates
determine where the receivers are located.

In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
a Routing Locator.
an RLOC. Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs to be taken
for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP header.
Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP header built
by a source host will be used as the destination EID. The outer IP
header (the destination Routing Locator RLOC address), prepended by a LISP router,
can use the same group address as the destination Routing Locator, RLOC, use a
multicast or unicast Routing
Locator RLOC obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or
use other means to determine the group address mapping.

With respect to the source Routing Locator RLOC address, the ITR prepends its own IP
address as the source address of the outer IP header, just like it
would if the destination EID was a unicast address. This source Routing Locator RLOC
address, like any other Routing Locator RLOC address, MUST be routable on the
underlay.

There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast, LISP-Multicast [RFC6831]: one that uses
native multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the
Mapping System and the other another that uses only unicast routing in the
underlay with support from the Mapping System. See [RFC6831] and
[RFC8378], respectively, for details. Details for LISP-Multicast and
interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and
[RFC6832].
[RFC6832], respectively.

15. Router Performance Considerations

LISP is designed to be very "hardware-based "hardware based and forwarding friendly".
A few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally
implement LISP:

* When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
destination address may not be the address of the router. This
makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
hardware. This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
translation). These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
that Control-Plane control plane processing SHOULD be performed. The forwarding
logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
necessary. There are a few proven cases where no changes to
existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP Data-
Plane.

o data
plane.

* On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
octets to a MAC Message Authentication Code (MAC) rewrite string and
prepending the string as part of the outgoing encapsulation
procedure. Routers that support Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] may already
support this action.

* A packet's source address or the interface on which the packet was
received on can be used to select VRF (Virtual Routing/Forwarding). Virtual Routing and Forwarding
(VRF). The VRF's VRF system's routing table can be used to find EID-to-RLOC EID-to-
RLOC mappings.

For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see
Section 16.

16. Security Considerations

In what follows follows, we highlight security considerations that apply when
LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in
Section 1.1.

The optional mechanisms of gleaning mechanism is offered to directly obtain a
mapping from the LISP encapsulated LISP-encapsulated packets. Specifically, an xTR can
learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and
source EID of an encapsulated packet, packet and insert this new mapping into
its Map-Cache. An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID address
to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID. If the
attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by
redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially
overloading it.

The LISP Data-Plane data plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC Data-
Plane reachability, data
plane reachability; in this context Locator-Status Bits, Nonce-
Present context, Locator-Status-Bits, nonce-
present bits, and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header
can be manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack. An off-path
attacker able to spoof the RLOC and/or nonce of a victim's xTR can
manipulate such mechanisms to declare false information about the
RLOC's reachability status.

For

An example of such attacks, attacks is when an off-path attacker can exploit
the
echo-nonce Echo-Nonce mechanism by sending data packets to an ITR with a
random nonce from an ETR's spoofed RLOC. Note that the attacker must only
has a small window of time within which to guess a valid nonce that
the ITR is requesting to be echoed within a small window
of time. echoed. The goal is to convince the ITR
that the ETR's RLOC is reachable even when it may not be reachable.
If the attack is successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability
status of the ETR's RLOC until RLOC-probing RLOC-Probing detects the correct
status. This time frame is on the order of 10s tens of seconds. This
specific attack can be mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the
network by deploying
uRPF Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) per BCP 38 [RFC2827].
84 [RFC8704]. In addition and in order to exploit this vulnerability, the off-path
attacker must also send echo-nonce Echo-Nonce packets at a high rate. If the
nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it can protect itself
from erroneous reachability attacks.

A LISP-specific uRPF check is also possible. When decapsulating, an
ETR can check that the source EID and RLOC are valid EID-to-RLOC
mappings by checking the Mapping System.

Map-Versioning is a Data-Plane data plane mechanism used to signal to a peering
xTR that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated, updated so that the
peering xTR uses a LISP Control-Plane control plane signaling message to retrieve a
fresh mapping. This can be used by an attacker to forge the map-
versioning 'Map-
Version' field of a LISP encapsulated LISP-encapsulated header and force an excessive
amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them. Further
security considerations on Map-Versioning can be found in [RFC9302].

Locator-Status-Bits, echo-nonce the Echo-Nonce mechanism, and map-versioning Map-Versioning
MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in
trusted and closed deployments. In addition addition, Locator-Status-Bits
SHOULD be coupled with map-versioning Map-Versioning to prevent race conditions
where Locator-
Status-Bits Locator-Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different
RLOCs than intended.

LISP implementations and deployments which that permit outer header
fragments of IPv6 LISP encapsulated LISP-encapsulated packets as a means of dealing
with MTU issues should also use implementation techniques in ETRs to
prevent this from being a DoS attack vector. Limits on the number of
fragments awaiting reassembly at an ETR, RTR, or PETR, and the rate
of admitting such fragments fragments, may be used.

17. Network Management Considerations

Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
protocol suite can be operationally managed. These mechanisms can be
found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].

18. Changes since RFC 6830

For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
made to this document since RFC 6830 [RFC6830] was published:

* It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers
be prepended to a packet. If there is a an application need for
more than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more.
However, it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two 2 LISP headers can be
prepended to a packet.

* The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
for [RFC8061]. The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named
the KK bits) KK-bits) are used as a key identifier. The 1 remaining bit is
still documented as reserved and unassigned.

o Data-Plane

* Data plane gleaning for creating map-cache Map-Cache entries has been made
optional. Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume that
the remote ETR is gleaning should not do so. This does not create
any interoperability problems problems, since the control-plane map-cache control plane Map-Cache
population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
for map-cache population.

o The bulk populating the Map-Cache.

* Most of the changes to this document document, which reduces reduce its length length, are
due to moving the LISP control-plane control plane messaging and procedures to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
[RFC9301].

19. IANA Considerations

This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
Data-Plane
data plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].

19.1. LISP UDP Port Numbers

The

IANA registry has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP
Data-Plane. data plane.
IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as follows:

Table 1

20. References

20.1. 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-07 (work in progress), October 2020.

[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos-
Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-
Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-29 (work in progress),
September 2020.

[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.

[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.

[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.

[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.

[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

[RFC6831] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

[RFC8378] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.

[RFC8704] Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., and J. Haas, "Enhanced
Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding", BCP 84,
RFC 8704, DOI 10.17487/RFC8704, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8704>.

[RFC9301] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.

[RFC9302] Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 9302,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9302, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9302>.

20.2. Informative References

[AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", August 2016,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.

[CHIAPPA] Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint names: Names: A Proposed",
1999,
<http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.

[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction Proposed
Enhancement to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015.

[I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] Internet Architecture", 1999,
<http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.

[LISP-VPN] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", draft-ietf-lisp-vpn-06 (work in
progress), August 2020.

[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud]
Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and
T. Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-22
(work Work in progress), June 2020. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-lisp-vpn-10, 3 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
vpn-10>.

[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.

[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot,

[RFC2453] Malkin, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 1918, 2453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

[RFC1981] McCann, 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.

[RFC2677] Greene, M., Cucchiara, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery Luciani, "Definitions of
Managed Objects for IP version 6", the NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol
(NHRP)", RFC 1981, 2677, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, 10.17487/RFC2677, August
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>. 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2677>.

[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.

[RFC3232] Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
January 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.

[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4459>.

[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

[RFC4984] Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.

[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.

[RFC6835] Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.

[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.

[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

[RFC7052] Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.

[RFC7215] Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.

[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>.

[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.

[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

Appendix

[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

[RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.

[RFC9299] Cabellos, A. and D. Saucez, Ed., "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9299, DOI 10.17487/RFC9299, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9299>.

Acknowledgments

An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
initial ideas for LISP. His consultation continues to provide value
to the LISP authors.

A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
practical and incremental transition for the Internet.

The original authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people
who have contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this
proposal. They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel,
Jason Schiller, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay
Gill, Geoff Huston, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted
Seely, Mark Townsley, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter
Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier
Bonaventure, Luigi Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel
Halpern, Terry Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas,
Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc
Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap
Lahiri, David Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver,
Fred Templin, Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro
Marques, Jari Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain,
Xu Xiaohu, Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John
Drake, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job
Snijders, Vina Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White,
Clarence Filsfils, Alia Atlas, Florin Coras Coras, and Alberto Rodriguez.

This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP working
group Working
Group document that became this RFC.

The LISP working group Working Group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
documents were was being prepared for IESG last call, and Last Call, for his meticulous
reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 working group
last call Working Group Last Call
documents progressing toward standards-track Standards Track RFCs.

The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the
people who help helped put LISP on standards track the Standards Track in the IETF. They
include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino,
Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete
Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kuhlewind, Kühlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin
Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagen, Ermagan, Mohamed
Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake. The
contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.

Appendix B. Document Change Log

[RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]

B.1. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27

o Posted November 2019.

o Fixed how LSB behave in the presence of new/removed locators.

o Added ETR synchronization requirements when using Map-Versioning.

o Fixed a large set of minor comments and edits.

B.2. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-27

o Posted April 2019 post telechat.

o Made editorial corrections per Warren's suggestions.

o Put in suggested text from Luigi that Mirja agreed with.

o LSB, Echo-Nonce and Map-Versioning SHOULD be only used in closed
environments.

o Removed paragraph stating that Instance-ID can be 32-bit in the
control-plane.

o 6831/8378 are now normative.

o Rewritten Security Considerations according to the changes.

o Stated that LSB SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning.

B.3. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26

o Posted late October 2018.

o Changed description about "reserved" bits to state "reserved and
unassigned".

B.4. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-25

o Posted mid October 2018.

o Added more to the Security Considerations section with discussion
about echo-nonce attacks.

B.5. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-24

o Posted mid October 2018.

o Final editorial changes for Eric and Ben.

B.6. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-23

o Posted early October 2018.

o Added an applicability statement in section 1 to address security
concerns from Telechat.

B.7. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-22

o Posted early October 2018.

o Changes to reflect comments post Telechat.

B.8. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-21

o Posted late-September 2018.

o Changes to reflect comments from Sep 27th Telechat.

B.9. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-20

o Posted late-September 2018.

o Fix old reference to RFC3168, changed to RFC6040.

B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-19

o Posted late-September 2018.

o More editorial changes.

B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-18

o Posted mid-September 2018.

o Changes to reflect comments from Secdir review (Mirja).

B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-17

o Posted September 2018.

o Indicate in the "Changes since RFC 6830" section why the document
has been shortened in length.

o Make reference to RFC 8085 about UDP congestion control.

o More editorial changes from multiple IESG reviews.

B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-16

o Posted late August 2018.

o Distinguish the message type names between ICMP for IPv4 and ICMP
for IPv6 for handling MTU issues.

B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15

o Posted August 2018.

o Final editorial changes before RFC submission for Proposed
Standard.

o Added section "Changes since RFC 6830" so implementers are
informed of any changes since the last RFC publication.

B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-14

o Posted July 2018 IETF week.

o Put obsolete of RFC 6830 in Intro section in addition to abstract.

B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-13

o Posted March IETF Week 2018.

o Clarified that a new nonce is required per RLOC.

o Removed 'Clock Sweep' section. This text must be placed in a new
OAM document.

o Some references changed from normative to informative

B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-12

o Posted July 2018.

o Fixed Luigi editorial comments to ready draft for RFC status.

B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-11

o Posted March 2018.

o Removed sections 16, 17 and 18 (Mobility, Deployment and
Traceroute considerations). This text must be placed in a new OAM
document.

B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-10

o Posted March 2018.

o Updated section 'Router Locator Selection' stating that the Data-
Plane MUST follow what's stored in the Map-Cache (priorities and
weights).

o Section 'Routing Locator Reachability': Removed bullet point 2
(ICMP Network/Host Unreachable),3 (hints from BGP),4 (ICMP Port
Unreachable),5 (receive a Map-Reply as a response) and RLOC
probing

o Removed 'Solicit-Map Request'.

B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-09

o Posted January 2018.

o Add more details in section 5.3 about DSCP processing during
encapsulation and decapsulation.

o Added clarity to definitions in the Definition of Terms section
from various commenters.

o Removed PA and PI definitions from Definition of Terms section.

o More editorial changes.

o Removed 4342 from IANA section and move to RFC6833 IANA section.

B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-08

o Posted January 2018.

o Remove references to research work for any protocol mechanisms.

o Document scanned to make sure it is RFC 2119 compliant.

o Made changes to reflect comments from document WG shepherd Luigi
Iannone.

o Ran IDNITs on the document.

B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-07

o Posted November 2017.

o Rephrase how Instance-IDs are used and don't refer to [RFC1918]
addresses.

B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-06

o Posted October 2017.

o Put RTR definition before it is used.

o Rename references that are now working group drafts.

o Remove "EIDs MUST NOT be used as used by a host to refer to other
hosts. Note that EID blocks MAY LISP RLOCs".

o Indicate what address-family can appear in data packets.

o ETRs may, rather than will, be the ones to send Map-Replies.

o Recommend, rather than mandate, max encapsulation headers to 2.

o Reference VPN draft when introducing Instance-ID.

o Indicate that SMRs can be sent when ITR/ETR are in the same node.

o Clarify when private addresses can be used.

B.24. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-05

o Posted August 2017.

o Make it clear that a Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router is an RTR.

B.25. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-04

o Posted July 2017.

o Changed reference of IPv6 RFC2460 to RFC8200.

o Indicate that the applicability statement for UDP zero checksums
over IPv6 adheres to RFC6936.

B.26. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-03

o Posted May 2017.

o Move the control-plane related codepoints in the IANA
Considerations section to RFC6833bis.

B.27. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-02

o Posted April 2017.

o Reflect some editorial comments from Damien Sausez.

B.28. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-01

o Posted March 2017.

o Include references to new RFCs published.

o Change references from RFC6833 to RFC6833bis.

o Clarified LCAF text in the IANA section.

o Remove references to "experimental".

B.29. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-00

o Posted December 2016.

o Created working group document from draft-farinacci-lisp
-rfc6830-00 individual submission. No other changes made.

Authors' Addresses

Dino Farinacci
lispers.net

EMail:
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: farinacci@gmail.com

Vince Fuller
vaf.net Internet Consulting

EMail:
Email: vince.fuller@gmail.com

Dave Meyer
1-4-5.net

EMail:
Email: dmm@1-4-5.net

Darrel Lewis
Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA
USA

EMail:
United States of America
Email: darlewis@cisco.com

Albert Cabellos
UPC/BarcelonaTech
Campus Nord, C. (editor)
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
c/ Jordi Girona 1-3
Barcelona, Catalunya s/n
08034 Barcelona
Spain

EMail:
Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu