idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits62923/draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 246: '... reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 wh...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 247: '...ocol packets and MUST be ignored when ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 84 has weird spacing: '...o-Point is a ...' == Line 87 has weird spacing: '...-Prefix forms...' -- The document date (April 28, 2017) is 1849 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1700 (Obsoleted by RFC 3232) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-acee-ospf-geo-location-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-03 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Farinacci 3 Internet-Draft lispers.net 4 Intended status: Experimental April 28, 2017 5 Expires: October 30, 2017 7 LISP Geo-Coordinate Use-Cases 8 draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03 10 Abstract 12 This draft describes how Geo-Coordinates can be used in the LISP 13 Architecture and Protocols. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2017. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records . . . . . . . . 3 53 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 55 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt . . . . . . . 9 62 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02.txt . . . . . . . 9 63 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt . . . . . . . 9 64 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.txt . . . . . . . 10 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 1. Introduction 69 The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new 70 numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators 71 (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most use of IP addresses on the 72 Internet. To provide flexibility for current and future 73 applications, these values can be encoded in LISP control messages 74 using a general syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI) 75 [RFC1700]. 77 This specification introduces the use of Geo-Coordinates that can be 78 used in EID-records and RLOC-records of LISP control messages. The 79 encoding format is specified in [RFC8060] as the "Geo-Coordinates 80 LCAF Type". 82 2. Definition of Terms 84 Geo-Point is a Geo-Coordinate according to [GEO] that defines a 85 point from parameters Latitude, Longitude, and Altitude. 87 Geo-Prefix forms a circle of a geographic area made up of a Geo- 88 Point and a Radius. A Geo-Point is known to be "more-specific" 89 than a Geo-Prefix when its physical location is within the 90 geographic circle. 92 3. Geo-Points in RLOC-records 94 Geo-Points can accompany an RLOC-record to determine the physical 95 location of an ETR or RTR. This can aid in determining geographical 96 distance when topological distance is inaccurate or hidden. When 97 Geo-Points are encoded in RLOC-records with RLOC addresses the LCAF 98 AFI-List Type should be used. 100 Geo-Points can be used as the sole piece of information in an RLOC- 101 record when an EID maps to a Geo-Coordinate. If it is desirable to 102 find the geographical location of any EID, this method can be 103 convienent. 105 Here is a high-level use-case where an EID that maps to a Geo- 106 Coordinate can be used. Lets say that am EID is assigned to a 107 physical shipping package by a package delivery company. And the EID 108 is encoded as an IPv6 address where the tracking number is embedded 109 in an IPv6 EID. The network has LISP nodes deployed in many 110 locations that are configured with their respective Geo-Coordinates. 111 As the package roams, the LISP node that discovers the EID, registers 112 it to the LISP mapping system. The EID-to-RLOC mapping is EID=IPv6 113 and RLOC=Geo-Coordinate. If someone does a mapping database lookup 114 on the IPv6 EID, what is returned is the Geo-Coordinate. As the EID 115 roams, new registrations with different Geo-Coordinates are stored, 116 allowing the physical tracking of the package. 118 4. Geo-Prefixes in EID-records and RLOC-records 120 A Geo-Prefix is defined to be a Geo-Coordinate point and a Radius. 121 This allows a circle to be drawn on a geographic map. The Geo-Prefix 122 can describe a coarse physical location for an RLOC when encoded in 123 an RLOC-record. So an RLOC could be registered in the mapping 124 database indicating it is in a city or country versus the exact 125 location where a Geo-Point would locate it. 127 A Geo-Prefix could allow a Distinguished-Name 128 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] to be registered as an EID with an 129 RLOC that contains a Geo-Prefix. For example EID="San Francisco", 130 with RLOC=geo-prefix could be stored in the mapping system. 132 A Geo-Prefix, when encoded in an EID-record, could be registered as 133 an EID-prefix and when a Geo-Point is used as an EID lookup key, a 134 sort of longest match could be looked up. If the Geo-Point is in the 135 Circle described by the Geo-Prefix, an entry is returned to the Map- 136 Requestor. 138 You could take a combination of mappings from the above examples to 139 ask the question: "Is the package in San Francisco"? This could be 140 done with two lookups to the mapping system: 142 Contents of Mapping Database: 143 EID= 144 RLOC= 146 EID= 147 RLOC= 149 EID= 150 RLOC= 152 Map-Request for package: 153 EID= 154 Mapping system returns: 155 RLOC= 157 Map-Request for geo-point: 158 EID= 159 Mapping system longest-match lookup returns: 160 EID= 161 RLOC= 163 If the package was not in San Francisco, the second mapping table 164 lookup would fail. 166 Another application is concentric rings of WiFi access-points. The 167 radius of each ring corresponds to the Wifi signal strength. An EID 168 could be located in any on the inner rings but possibly on the edge 169 of a ring. A WiFi access-point RLOC can be selected to encapsulate 170 packets to because it will have better signal to the current EID 171 location. And when there are intersecting circles, it can be 172 determined that when the EID is in the intersection of the circles, 173 it would be a good time to transition radios to closer APs or base 174 stations. 176 When assigning EIDs to vehicles 177 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement], a Geo-Prefix could be used to 178 create a "reachability set" of Road-Side-Units (RSUs). So an ITR 179 could encapsulate to multiple RLOCs in the Geo-Prefix to try to 180 create connectivity to the vehicle while roaming. This makes use of 181 predictive RLOCs that can be used when the direction of the roaming 182 EID is known (a train track or single direction road, but not a 183 flight path of a plane). 185 5. Geo-Prefix and Geo-Point Encodings 187 When a Geo-Prefix or a Geo-Point are encoded in an EID-record, it is 188 encoded solely with the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type format when VPNs 189 are not in use. When VPNs are used, the Geo-Coordinate LCAF Type is 190 encoded within an Instance-ID LCAF Type. 192 0 1 2 3 193 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 1 194 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 | AFI = 16387 | Rsvd1 | Flags | 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | Type = 5 | Rsvd2 | Length | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 |U|N|E|A|M|R|K| Reserved | Location Uncertainty | 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 | Lat Degrees | Latitude Milliseconds | 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | Long Degrees | Longitude Milliseconds | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | Altitude | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | Radius | Reserved | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | AFI = x | Address ... | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 Rsvd1/Rsvd2/Flags: See [RFC8060] for details. 214 Length: length in bytes starting and including the byte after this 215 Length field. 217 U-bit: If the U-bit is set, it indicates that the "Location 218 Uncertainty" field is specified. If the U-bit is clear, it 219 indicates the "Location Uncertainty" field is unspecified. 221 N-bit: If the N-bit is set, it indicates the Latitude is north 222 relative to the Equator. If the N-bit is clear, it indicates the 223 Latitude is south of the Equator. 225 E-bit: If the E-bit is set, it indicates the Longitude is east of 226 the Prime Meridian. If the E-bit is clear, it indicates the 227 Longitude is west of the Prime Meridian. 229 A-bit: If the A-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" field is 230 specified. If the A-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" 231 field is unspecified. 233 M-bit: If the M-bit is set, it indicates the "Altitude" is specified 234 in meters. If the M-bit is clear, it indicates the "Altitude" is 235 in centimeters. 237 R-bit: If the R-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" field is 238 specified and the encoding is a Geo-Prefix. If the R-bit is 239 clear, it indicates the "Radius" field is unspecified and the 240 encoding is a Geo-Point. 242 K-bit: If the K-bit is set, it indicates the "Radius" is specified 243 in kilometers. If the K-bit is clear, it indicates the "Radius" 244 is in meters. 246 Reserved: These bits are reserved. They SHOULD be set to 0 when 247 sending protocol packets and MUST be ignored when receiving 248 protocol packets. 250 Location Uncertainty: Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the number 251 of centimeters of uncertainty for the location. 253 Latitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 90 254 degrees north or south of the Equator (northern or southern 255 hemisphere, respectively). 257 Latitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 258 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 260 Longitude Degrees: Unsigned 8-bit integer with a range of 0 - 180 261 degrees east or west of the Prime Meridian. 263 Longitude Milliseconds: Unsigned 24-bit integer with a range of 0 - 264 3,599,999 (i.e., less than 60 minutes). 266 Altitude: Signed 32-bit integer containing the Height relative to 267 sea level in centimeters or meters. A negative height indicates 268 that the location is below sea level. 270 Radius: Unsigned 16-bit integer containing the radius of a circle 271 (or sphere) centered at the specified coordinates. The radius is 272 specified in meters unless the K-bit is specified indicating 273 radius is in kilometers. When the radius is specified, this LCAF 274 type encodes a Geo-Prefix where the geo-coordinates define the 275 entire area of the circle defined by the radius and center point. 277 AFI = x: x can be any AFI value from [AFI] and [RFC8060]. 279 6. Security Considerations 281 The use of Geo-Coordinates in any application must be considered 282 carefully to not violate any privacy concerns about physical 283 location. This draft does take into consideration the applicability 284 of BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy protection. 286 In a LISP environment, Geo-Coordinates can be registered to the 287 Mapping Database System. When this occurs, an xTR is allowing its 288 physical location to be known to queriers of the mapping system as 289 well as network components that make up the mapping system. There 290 are various sets of trust relationships that may exist. 292 An xTR at a LISP site already has a business and trust relationship 293 with its Mapping Service Provider (MSP). When xTRs register their 294 mappings with Geo-Coordinate information, a policy is agreed upon 295 about who can access the information. Typically, the policy is 296 stored locally and processed by the xTR when the MSP forwards Map- 297 Requests to the xTRs of the LISP site. Conditionally, based on the 298 requesting xTR, the responding xTR can apply the local policy to 299 decide if a Map-Reply is sent with all RLOC-records, or perhaps, the 300 RLOC-records that do not contain Geo-Coordinate information. 302 The MSP can also be requested by LISP site xTRs to proxy Map-Reply to 303 Map-Requests. In this case, the MSP must apply the xTR policy so 304 only authorized requesters get access to Geo-Coordinate information. 306 Note that once a requester is authorized, Map-Replies are returned 307 directly to the requester and are signed with [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]. 308 The Map-Replies not only authenticates the Map-Replier but can be 309 encrypted by the Map-Replier so no eavesdropping of Geo-Coordinate 310 information can occur. 312 7. IANA Considerations 314 At this time there are no specific requests for IANA. 316 8. References 318 8.1. Normative References 320 [GEO] Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic 321 System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, . 324 [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 325 DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994, 326 . 328 [RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J., 329 Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for 330 Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications", 331 BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011, 332 . 334 [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The 335 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 336 DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013, 337 . 339 [RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical 340 Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060, 341 February 2017, . 343 8.2. Informative References 345 [AFI] IANA, , "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY 346 NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family- 347 numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007. 349 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location] 350 Lindem, A., Shen, N., and E. Chen, "OSPF Extensions for 351 Advertising/Signaling Geo Location Information", draft- 352 acee-ospf-geo-location-04 (work in progress), April 2017. 354 [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] 355 Chen, E., Shen, N., and R. Raszuk, "Carrying Geo 356 Coordinates in BGP", draft-chen-idr-geo-coordinates-02 357 (work in progress), October 2016. 359 [I-D.farinacci-lisp-name-encoding] 360 Farinacci, D., "LISP Distinguished Name Encoding", draft- 361 farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-03 (work in progress), March 362 2017. 364 [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] 365 Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D. 366 Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12 367 (work in progress), November 2016. 369 [I-D.jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement] 370 Jeong, J. and T. Oh, "Problem Statement for Vehicle-to- 371 Infrastructure Networking", draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem- 372 statement-02 (work in progress), July 2016. 374 [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates] 375 Shen, N. and E. Chen, "Carrying Geo Coordinates 376 Information In IS-IS", draft-shen-isis-geo-coordinates-03 377 (work in progress), April 2017. 379 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 381 The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and 382 acceptance of this draft. 384 A special thanks goes to Enke Chen, Acee Lindem, and Naiming Shen for 385 collaboarting on a consistent geo-location encoding format with OSPF 386 [I-D.acee-ospf-geo-location], IS-IS [I-D.shen-isis-geo-coordinates], 387 and BGP [I-D.chen-idr-geo-coordinates] protocols. 389 Appendix B. Document Change Log 391 [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.] 393 B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-03.txt 395 o Posted April 2017. 397 o Update document timer. 399 B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-02.txt 401 o Posted October 2016. 403 o Change format of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type to be compatible 404 with equivalent proposals for OSPF, IS-IS, and BGP. 406 o Add to the Security Considerations section to BCP160 compliance. 408 B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-01.txt 410 o Posted October 2016. 412 o Clarify that the Geo-Coordinates LCAF type should be encoded 413 inside an Instance-ID LCAF type when VPNs are used. 415 o Indiate what the value of the Altitude field is when not included 416 in a message. Since this draft shortens the field, a new value is 417 specified in this draft for not conveying an Altitude value in a 418 message. 420 B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-geo-00.txt 422 o Initial draft posted April 2016. 424 Author's Address 426 Dino Farinacci 427 lispers.net 428 San Jose, CA 429 USA 431 Email: farinacci@gmail.com