draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-00.txt   draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-01.txt 
LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal LISP Working Group A. Rodriguez-Natal
Internet-Draft V. Ermagan Internet-Draft V. Ermagan
Intended status: Experimental A. Smirnov Intended status: Experimental A. Smirnov
Expires: February 18, 2018 V. Ashtaputre Expires: August 20, 2018 V. Ashtaputre
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
D. Farinacci D. Farinacci
lispers.net lispers.net
August 17, 2017 2 16, 2018
Vendor Specific LCAF Vendor Specific LCAF
draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-00 draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a new LCAF for LISP, the Vendor Specific This document describes a new LCAF for LISP, the Vendor Specific
LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have internal encodings for LCAF. This LCAF enables organizations to have internal encodings for
LCAF addresses. LCAF addresses.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Vendor Specific LCAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LISP Canonical Address Format [RFC8060] defines the format and The LISP Canonical Address Format [RFC8060] defines the format and
encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP encoding for different address types that can be used on LISP
[RFC6830] deployments. However, certain deployments require specific [RFC6830] deployments. However, certain deployments require specific
format encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use-case format encodings that may not be applicable outside of the use-case
for which they are defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows for which they are defined. The Vendor Specific LCAF allows
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
The definition for the rest of the fields can be found in [RFC8060]. The definition for the rest of the fields can be found in [RFC8060].
The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where The Vendor Specific LCAF type SHOULD not be used in deployments where
different organizations interoperate. If a LISP device receives a different organizations interoperate. If a LISP device receives a
LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it LISP message containing a Vendor Specific LCAF with an OUI that it
does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST does not understand, it SHOULD drop the message and a log action MUST
be taken. be taken.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
TBD. 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.
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
TBD. The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern for his suggestions and
comments regarding this document.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
Following the guidelines of [RFC5226], this document requests IANA to Following the guidelines of [RFC5226], this document requests IANA to
update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry update the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry
defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment: defined in [RFC8060] to allocate the following assignment:
+---------+---------------------+-----------+ +---------+---------------------+-----------+
| Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference | | Value # | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference |
+---------+---------------------+-----------+ +---------+---------------------+-----------+
skipping to change at page 4, line 23 skipping to change at page 4, line 29
7. Normative References 7. Normative References
[IEEE.802_2001] [IEEE.802_2001]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001, Networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE 802-2001,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2002.93395, July 2002,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>. <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=7732>.
[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, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
editor.org/info/rfc6830>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>. February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Alberto Rodriguez-Natal
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: natal@cisco.com Email: natal@cisco.com
Vina Ermagan Vina Ermagan
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 Tasman Drive 170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA USA
Email: vermagan@cisco.com Email: vermagan@cisco.com
Anton Smirnov Anton Smirnov
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/