1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Rodriguez-Natal
Request for Comments: 9306 Cisco
Updates: 8060 V. Ermagan
Category: Experimental Google, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Smirnov
V. Ashtaputre
Cisco
D. Farinacci
lispers.net
October 2022
Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
Abstract
This document describes a new Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
Canonical Address Format (LCAF), the Vendor-Specific LCAF. This LCAF
enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for
LCAF addresses. This document updates RFC 8060.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
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) 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. Requirements Notation
3. Unrecognized LCAF Types
4. Vendor-Specific LCAF
5. Security Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
7. Normative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) [RFC8060] defines the format
and encoding for different address types that can be used on
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 for
which they are defined. This document extends [RFC8060] to introduce
a 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.
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
[RFC8060] does not explain how an implementation should handle an
unrecognized LCAF type. This document updates [RFC8060] to specify
that any unrecognized LCAF 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 [RFC9301]. If an EID-Prefix only contains unrecognized
LCAF types, the LISP control message MUST be dropped and the event
MUST be logged. (Here, "EID" refers to Endpoint Identifier.)
4. Vendor-Specific LCAF
The 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-
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 = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd3 | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Internal format... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Vendor-Specific LCAF
The fields in the first 8 octets of the above Vendor-Specific LCAF
are actually the fields defined in the general LCAF format specified
in [RFC8060]. The Type field MUST be set 255, the value assigned by
IANA to indicate that this is a Vendor-Specific LCAF; see Section 6.
The Length field has to be set accordingly to the length of the
internal format, plus the OUI, plus the Rsvd3 fields, as for
[RFC8060]. The fields defined by the Vendor-Specific LCAF 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 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 field that is left
undefined on purpose. Each vendor or organization can define its
own internal format(s) to use with the Vendor-Specific LCAF.
The 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-
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
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. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC8126], IANA has assigned the
following value for the Vendor-Specific LCAF from the "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry (defined in [RFC8060]):
+=======+=====================+=====================+
| Value | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+=======+=====================+=====================+
| 255 | Vendor Specific | RFC 9306, Section 4 |
+-------+---------------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Vendor-Specific LCAF Assignment
7. Normative References
[IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, 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, 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
|
