LISP Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9306 Cisco
Updates: 8060 (if approved) V. Ermagan
Intended status:
Category: Experimental Google
Expires: 7 January 2023 Google, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Smirnov
V. Ashtaputre
Cisco
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
6 July
October 2022
Vendor Specific
Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-12
Abstract
This document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF. This LCAF
enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for
LCAF addresses. This document updates RFC8060. RFC 8060.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents valid approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of six months
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be 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 7 January 2023.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9306.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Unrecognized LCAF types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Types
4. Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
and encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] deployments.
deployments of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC9300]
[RFC9301]. However, certain deployments require specific format
encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use-case use case for
which they are defined. This document extends [RFC8060] to introduce
a Vendor
Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF that defines how organizations can create LCAF
addresses to be used only on particular LISP implementations. This
document also updates [RFC8060] to specify the behavior when
receiving unrecognized LCAF Types. types.
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. Unrecognized LCAF types Types
[RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle an
unrecognized LCAF Type. type. This document updates [RFC8060] to specify
that any unrecognized LCAF Type type received in a LISP control plane
message MUST be ignored. If all Locators are ignored, this is
equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as
described in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. [RFC9301]. If an EID-Prefix only contains unrecognized
LCAF Types, types, the LISP control message MUST be dropped and the event
MUST be logged. (Here, "EID" refers to Endpoint Identifier.)
4. Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF
The Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF relies on using the IEEE Organizationally
Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802] to prevent collisions across
vendors or organizations using the LCAF. The format of the Vendor Vendor-
Specific LCAF is provided below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD 255 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF
The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF
are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
in [RFC8060]. The "Type" Type field MUST be set to 255, the value assigned by
IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor Specific LCAF (255 is
recommended, Vendor-Specific LCAF; see Section 7). 6.
The Length field has to be set accordingly to the length of the
internal format format, plus the OUI OUI, plus the Rsvd3 fields fields, as for
[RFC8060]. The fields defined by the Vendor
Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF are: are as
follows:
Rsvd3: This 8-bit field is reserved for future use. It MUST be set
to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): This is a 24-bit field
that carries an OUI or CID (Company ID) Company ID (CID) assigned by the IEEE
Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802
[IEEE.802]
Internal format: This is a variable length variable-length field that is left
undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its
own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF.
The Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where
different organizations interoperate. However, there may be cases
where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which
they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor Vendor-
Specific LCAF. In that case, the organizations involved need to
carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular
deployment. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an
organization.
If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific
LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST drop the
message and it SHOULD create a log message.
5. Security Considerations
This document enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their
internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to
properly assess the security implications of the formats they define.
Security considerations from [RFC8060] apply to this document.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, and
Alvaro Retana for their suggestions and guidance regarding this
document.
7. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA is asked to assign a has assigned the
following value (255 is suggested) for the Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in
[RFC8060]) as follows:
+=========+=====================+============================+ [RFC8060]):
+=======+=====================+=====================+
| Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+=========+=====================+============================+
+=======+=====================+=====================+
| TBD 255 | Vendor Specific | [This Document], RFC 9306, Section 4 |
+---------+---------------------+----------------------------+
+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific LCAF assignment
8. Assignment
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-38, 7 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-38.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6833bis-31.txt>.
[IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, 1 July 2014,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847097>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.
[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
The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, and
Alvaro Retana for their suggestions and guidance regarding this
document.
Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco
Spain
Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan
Google
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: ermagan@gmail.com
Anton Smirnov
Cisco
Diegem
Belgium
Email: asmirnov@cisco.com
Vrushali Ashtaputre
Cisco
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: vrushali@cisco.com
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
United States of America
Email: farinacci@gmail.com