rfc9304.original   rfc9304.txt 
LISP M. Boucadair Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft C. Jacquenet Request for Comments: 9304 C. Jacquenet
Obsoletes: 8113 (if approved) Orange Obsoletes: 8113 Orange
Intended status: Standards Track January 25, 2019 Category: Standards Track October 2022
Expires: July 29, 2019 ISSN: 2070-1721
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message and IANA
Registry for Packet Type Allocations Registry for Packet Type Allocations
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-03
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) This document specifies a Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting
experiments without consuming a LISP packet type codepoint for each experiments without consuming a LISP Packet Type codepoint for each
extension. extension.
This document obsoletes RFC 8113. This document obsoletes RFC 8113.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9304.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
described in the Simplified BSD License. in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language
3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. LISP Packet Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1. LISP Packet Types
5.2. Sub-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2. Sub-Types
6. Changes from RFC 8113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Changes from RFC 8113
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Normative References
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification, The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification,
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], defines a set of primitives that are [RFC9301], defines a set of primitives that are identified with a
identified with a packet type code. Several extensions have been packet type code. Several extensions have been proposed to add more
proposed to add more LISP functionalities. It is expected that LISP functionalities. It is expected that additional LISP extensions
additional LISP extensions will be proposed in the future. will be proposed in the future.
The "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section 5) is used to ease The "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section 5) is used to ease
the tracking of LISP message types. the tracking of LISP message types.
Because of the limited type space [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the Because of the limited type space [RFC9301] and the need to conduct
need to conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this document specifies a
document specifies a shared LISP extension message type and describes shared LISP extension message type and describes a procedure for
a procedure for registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see Section 3).
Section 3). Concretely, one single LISP message type code is Concretely, one single LISP message type code is dedicated to future
dedicated to future LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely identify a given LISP
identify a given LISP extension making use of the shared LISP extension making use of the shared LISP extension message type.
extension message type. These identifiers are selected by the These identifiers are selected by the author(s) of the corresponding
author(s) of the corresponding LISP specification that introduces a LISP specification that introduces a new LISP extension message type.
new LISP extension message type.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type
Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension
message. The type field MUST be set to 15 (see Section 5). message. The type field MUST be set to 15 (see Section 5).
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=15| Sub-type | extension-specific | |Type=15| Sub-type | extension-specific |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// extension-specific // // extension-specific //
// // // //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type
The "Sub-type" field conveys a unique identifier that MUST be The 'Sub-type' field conveys a unique identifier that MUST be
registered with IANA (see Section 5.2). registered with IANA (see Section 5.2).
The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the
message is specified in the corresponding specification document. message is specified in the corresponding specification document.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues other This document does not introduce any additional security issues other
than those discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. than those discussed in [RFC9301].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. LISP Packet Types 5.1. LISP Packet Types
IANA has created a protocol registry for LISP Packet Types, numbered IANA has created a registry titled "LISP Packet Types", numbered
0-15. 0-15.
Values can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126]. Documents Values can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126]. Documents
that request for a new LISP packet type may indicate a preferred that request for a new LISP Packet Type may indicate a preferred
value in the corresponding IANA sections. value in the corresponding IANA sections.
IANA is requested to replace the reference to RFC8113 with the RFC IANA has replaced the reference to RFC 8113 with the RFC number of
number to be assigned to this document. this document.
Also, IANA is requested to update the table as follows: Also, IANA has updated the table as follows:
OLD: OLD:
Message Code Reference +===============================+======+===========+
================================= ==== =============== | Message | Code | Reference |
LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [RFC8113] +===============================+======+===========+
| LISP Shared Extension Message | 15 | [RFC8113] |
+-------------------------------+------+-----------+
Table 1
NEW: NEW:
Message Code Reference
================================= ==== =============== +===============================+======+===========+
LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [ThisDocument] | Message | Code | Reference |
+===============================+======+===========+
| LISP Shared Extension Message | 15 | RFC 9304 |
+-------------------------------+------+-----------+
Table 2
5.2. Sub-Types 5.2. Sub-Types
IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types" IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types"
registry. IANA is requested to update that registry by replacing the registry. IANA has updated that registry by replacing the reference
reference to RFC8113 with the RFC number to be assigned to this to RFC 8113 with the RFC number of this document.
document.
The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action.
This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the
exhaustion of the LISP Packet types. exhaustion of the LISP Packet Types.
The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First
Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure should provide IANA Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure is to provide IANA
with the desired codepoint and a point of contact; providing a short with the desired codepoint and a point of contact; providing a short
description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen
usage of the extension message is also encouraged. usage of the extension message is also encouraged.
6. Changes from RFC 8113 6. Changes from RFC 8113
The following changes were made from RFC 8113: The following changes were made from RFC 8113:
o Change the status from Experimental to Standard track. * Changed the status from Experimental to Standards Track.
o Indicate explicitly that the shared extension is used for two * Indicated explicitly that the shared extension is used for two
purposes: extend the type space and conduct experiments to assess purposes: extend the type space and conduct experiments to assess
new LISP extensions. new LISP extensions.
o Delete pointers to some examples illustrating how the shared * Deleted pointers to some examples illustrating how the shared
extension message is used to extend the LISP protocol. extension message is used to extend the LISP protocol.
o Request IANA to update the "IANA LISP Packet Types" and "LISP * IANA has updated the "IANA LISP Packet Types" and "LISP Shared
Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types" registries to point to Extension Message Type Sub-types" registries to point to this
this document instead of RFC8113. document instead of RFC 8113.
7. Acknowledgments
This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-
009-X.
Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for
the review.
Thanks to Geoff Huston, Brian Carpenter, Barry Leiba, and Suresh
Krishnan for the review.
8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 7. Normative References
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23 (work in progress), December
2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
Acknowledgments
This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-
009-X.
Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for
the review.
Thanks to Geoff Huston, Brian Carpenter, Barry Leiba, and Suresh
Krishnan for the review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair Mohamed Boucadair
Orange Orange
Rennes 35000 35000 Rennes
France France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Christian Jacquenet Christian Jacquenet
Orange Orange
Rennes 35000 35000 Rennes
France France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
105 lines changed or deleted 107 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.