LISP Working Group S. Barkai Internet-Draft B. Fernandez-Ruiz Intended status: Informational R. Tamir Expires: July 30, 2022 Nexar Inc. A. Rodriguez-Natal F. Maino Cisco Systems A. Cabellos-Aparicio J. Paillisse Vilanova Technical University of Catalonia D. Farinacci lispers.net June 6, 2022 Network-Hexagons: Mobility Geolocation Edge Network Using LISP draft-ietf-lisp-nexagon-25 Abstract Geolocation-Services aggregate raw data uploads from vehicles using edge compute locations and process these uploads generating verified, localized, geospatial detection-channels - used by mobility clients to support crowed-sourced dynamic mapping and driving applications. Geolocation Services are broken to shards (areas) and dynamically mapped to compute locations based on road activity. This dynamics combined with clients IP Anchors dynamics creates coherency, context- switching, geo-privacy, and service continuity key issues. These issues are resolved by dataflow virtualization, communication indirection, between mobility clients and Geolocation Services. LISP overlay network-virtualization, offers a fully distributed dataflow virtualization solution at the edge networking level. LISP as a Geolocation mobility-network is described in this document. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 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 July 30, 2022. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 1] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Deployment Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Mobility Clients Network Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Mobility Unicast and Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1. Introduction Geolocation-Services aggregate raw data uploads from vehicles using edge compute locations and process these uploads generating verified, localized, geospatial detection-channels - used by mobility clients to support crowed-sourced dynamic mapping and driving applications. Geolocation Services are broken to shards (areas) and dynamically mapped to compute locations based on road activity. This dynamics combined with clients IP Anchors dynamics creates coherency, context- switching, geo-privacy, and service continuity key issues. These issues are resolved by dataflow virtualization, communication indirection, between mobility clients and Geolocation Services. LISP overlay network-virtualization, offers a fully distributed dataflow virtualization solution for the edge at the networking level. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 2] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 Geolocation services shard transformation of inaccurate, duplicated data captured and uploaded by multiple vehicles points of view, into consolidated information channels, can be schematically described by the following key components: - Addressable queues for uploads from mobility clients in vehicles - Addressable detection channels subscribed to by mobility clients - State & functions transforming upload data to detection channels This service allocation dynamics combined with dynamics of mobility clients in selecting mobile-provider and switching IP Anchors, creates key-issues: - Coherency of Geolocation shards IP addresses cached in clients - Context-switching between Geolocation Service shards while driving - Geo-privacy of clients while interacting with Geolocation shards - Subscription continuity when switching providers while driving These issues are resolved by dataflow virtualization, communication indirection, between mobility clients and Geolocation Services. Such communication when based on logical addresses of entities and addressable geospatial topics solves these issues. Virtual and logical addressing allows for dynamic and portable shard allocation, algorithmic context-switching between shards while driving and channel subscription continuity while preserving the geo-privacy of mobility clients. LISP network-virtualization can offer such a solution through specific use of Endpoint Identifiers (EID): - EID addressing of upload queues per geospatial grid identifiers - EID addressing of detection channels per geospatial topics - EID addressing of mobility clients renewed periodically These EIDs are tracked by the LISP mobility-network offering dynamic portability of queues and channels. Functions are assumed to be available in any compute location and geospatial current-state used for consolidation quickly regenerates. EIDs of mobility clients are mapped across the LISP mobility-network enabling service continuity when mobile carriers are switched by the vehicle systems. These EIDs are ephemeral and make it difficult for just any mobility service provider to track mobility clients movement during the day. The use of LISP as the mobility-network for dataflow virtualization between mobility client to Geolocation Services is described bellow. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 3] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 Note 1: The breakdown of Geolocations Services to area-shards is done based on geospatial grid lines known to both mobility clients and Geolocation Services. We use H3 hierarchical hexagonal grid because of its clear shard adjacency properties (https://h3geo.org/). Each grid- tile in each resolution has a unique 64bit identifier (HID). In addition to shards and HID to EID mapping, the same grid is used to localize road detections. We refer to h3.rB as the lower resolution shard tile, and h3.rS as the detection higher resolution tile. The mappings: GPS to h3.rS to H3.rB to EID are therefore algorithmic. Sizeof (h3.rB) / Sizeof (h3.rS) x density-factor / MTU (1500 Bytes) = number of message needed for a shard to convey a state snapshot. Note 2: LISP solution for dataflow virtualization is an application network. In order for clients and services to use it there needs to be a formal provisioning step. For the clients this step will require Authentication Authorization and Accounting (AAA) procedure by which clients are assigned and renew EIDs and XTRs to be used to communicate with services. This process may be done in various vendor specific methods, in this document we use a Diameter[RFC6733] AAA service, this is meant as a life-cycle example only. Note 3: In order to make the notion of geospatial detection concrete, we add to the 64bit HID of "where" is a detection, 64bit of "what" is the detection. These 64bits are detailed in a bit-mask of possible detections based on a taxonomy defined by Berkeley Deep Drive (BDD) consortium (https://bdd-data.berkeley.edu). It is meant as a baseline that can be extended in additional specifications, yet proven minimal sufficient in current implementations. _____ / \ Off-Peak Allocation Addressable >> States >> Addressable _ _ _ _ Upload Queues \_____/ Channels / \/ \ / \/ \ ---- /\ f1()..fn() \/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- / \/ \ / \/ \ ---- Peak Geolocation Allocation \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / \/ \ / \/ \ ---- / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ ---- \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- / \/ \ / \/ \ ---- / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ / \/ \ ---- \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_/ ---- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Site Site Standby Site Site Site Site Standby Figure 1: Geolocation Service Schematics and Dynamic Allocation Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 4] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 2. Definition of Terms Based on [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis][I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] H3ServiceEID: Is an EID addressable Geolocation Service shard. It is a designated destination for geospatial detections, and an (S,G) source of multicast of themed detection channels. It has a light-weight LISP protocol stack to tunnel packets via ServerXTR. The EID is IPv6 and contains HID in the lower bits. ServerXTR: Is a data-plane only LISP protocol stack implementation, it is co-located with H3ServiceEID process. ServerXTR encapsulates and decapsulates packets to and from EdgeRTRs. MobilityClient: Is an application that may be a part of a vehicle system, part of a navigation application, gov-muni application etc. It has light-weight LISP data-plane stack to packets via ClientXTR. MobilityClientEID: Is the IPv6 EID used by the Mobility Clients. The destination of such packets are H3ServiceEIDs. The EID format is assigned as part of the MobilityClient mobility-network AAA. ClientXTR: Is a data-plane only LISP protocol stack implementation co-located with the Mobility Client application. It encapsulates and decapsulates packets to and from EdgeRTRs. EdgeRTR: EdgeRTR network connect MobilityClients H3ServiceEIDs. They also manage MobilityClients multicast registrations [RFC8378]. EdgeRTRs aggregate MobilityClients/H3Services using tunnels to facilitate hosting-providers and mobile-providers for accessing the mobility-network. EdgeRTRs decapsulate packets from ClientXTRs, ServerXTRs and re-encapsulates packets to clients and servers via tunnels. EdgeRTRs glean H3ServiceEIDs and MobilityClient EIDs when they decapsulates packets. EdgeRTRs store H3ServiceEIDs and route- locations (RLOC) of where the H3ServiceEID is currently using map-cache. Mappings are registered to the LISP mapping system [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].These mappings may be provisioned when H3Services are assigned EdgeRTRs. EdgeRTRs do not register MobilityClients' EIDs. Enterprises may provide their own EdgeRTRs to protect geo-privacy. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 5] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 ___ ___ H3ServiceEIDs ___ / \ H3ServiceEIDs ___ / \ ___ / | h3.rB | ___ / | h3.rB | / | h3.rB \ ___ / / | h3.rB \ ___ / | h3.rB \ ___ / sXTR | h3.rB \ ___ / sXTR \ ___ / sXTR | \ ___ / sXTR | sXTR | | sXTR | | | | | | | | | | | | | | + - - + - - EdgeRTR EdgeRTR - + - + - - + || ( ( (( || ( ) ( Network Hexagons ) ( H3-LISP ) ( mobility-network ) (( ) || (( (()) () || || || = = = = = = = = = = = = = = || || EdgeRTR EdgeRTR .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ((((|)))) ((((|)))) ((((|)))) ((((|)))) /|\ RAN /|\ /|\ RAN /|\ .. .. .. .. Uploads Upstream Uploads Upstream Channels Downstream h3.rS Tiled Road Channels Downstream .. ___ ___ ___ .. .. << movment << / \/ \/ \ << cXTR::MobilityClientB .. - - - - - - - - h3.rS h3.rS h3.rS - - - - - - - - - - - - MobilityClientA::cXTR >> \ ___ /\ ___ / >> movement >> ....... Figure 2: Client Mapping h3.rS to h3.rB to LISP routed EID Figure 2 above describes the following entities interacting: - MobilityClientA detections used by MobilityClientB, and, vice versa - Clients: share information via Geolocation Services routed by LISP - ClientXTR (cXTR): tunnels packets over access networks to EdgeRTR - ServerXTR (sXTR): tunnels packets over cloud networks to EdgeRTR - H3-LISP Mobility Network: overlay which spans cXTRs to sXTRs - Uploads: routed to appropriate Geolocation Service by LISP - EdgeRTRs: perform multicast replication to EdgeRTRs then to cXTRs Multicast channels carry detections processed by Geolocation services Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 6] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 3. Deployment Assumptions The specification described in this document makes the following deployment assumptions: (1) Unique 64bit HID is associated with each H3 geospatial tile (2) MobilityClients and H3ServiceEIDs share grid based indexing (3) 64bit BDD state value is associated with each H3-indexed tile (4) Tile state is compiled 16 fields of 4-bits, or max 16 enums 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+ |-0-|-1-|-2-|-3-|-4-|-5-|-6-|-7-|-8-|-9-|-A-|-B-|-C-|-D-|-E-|-F-| |012301230123012301230123 Index 01230123012301230123012301230123 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 3: Nibble based representation of tile state State is 16 fields x 16 enumerations. Nibbles are named using hexadecimal index according to the position where the most significant nibble has index 0. Values are defined in section 8. Subscription of MobilityClients to mobility-network is renewed while driving. It is not intended as the basic connectivity. MobilityClients use DNS/AAA described bellow to obtain EIDs/EdgeRTRs and use (LISP) data-plane tunnels to communicate using their EIDs with the dynamically assigned EdgeRTRs. MobilityClients only use the LISP data plane. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 7] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 In order to get access to the mobility-network, MobilityClients first authenticate with the Mobility AAA. Diameter [RFC6733] based AAA can be used as a solution for the many types of mobility clients: vehicle systems, driving applications, city and consumer applications. ClientXTRs may perform provision steps to use the mobility-network: 1) obtain the address of the mobility-network AAA server using DNS 2) obtain MobilityClientEIDs and EdgeRTRs from AAA Diameter server 3) renew authorization from AAA while using the mobility-network They may also be provisioned using vendor tools. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 8] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 MobilityClient DomainNameServer Diameter-AAA MobilityEdgeRTR | | | | | nslookup | | | |------------------->| | | |<-------------------| | | | Mobility AAA IP | | | | [RFC6733] | | | | AAR(AVP:IMSI/User/Password/Toyota) | | |--------------------------------------->| [RFC6733] | | | | ACR(AVP ClientEID)| | | |------------------>| | | |<------------------| | | | ACA(AVP ClientEID)| | AAA (ClientEID,EdgeRTR::RLOC) | | |<---------------------------------------| | | | | | . . . Upload to IPv6 H3ServiceEID, Subscribe MLDv2 H3ServiceEID . . . | | |----------------------------------------------------------->| . . . . |<-----------------------------------------------------------| | | . . . Signal freeing multicast Updates from H3ServiceEID . . . | | | | | AAR(temporary) | | |--------------------------------------->| ACR (temporary) | | | |------------------>| | | |<------------------| | | | ACA (temporary) | |<---------------------------------------| | | AAA (temporary) | | Figure 4: DNS and AAA Exchange for lisp mobility-network usage Using such an AAA procedure we can ensure that: - MobilityClientEIDs serve as credentials with the EdgeRTRs - EdgeRTRs are provisioned to approved-list MobilityClientEIDs - EdgeRTRs are not tightly coupled to h3.rB areas (privacy/balance) - MobilityClients do not need to update EdgeRTRs while driving Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 9] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 4. Mobility Clients Network Services The mobility-network functions as a standard LISP overlay. The overlay delivers unicast and multicast packets across: - multiple access-networks and radio-access specifications - multiple cloud and edge providers, and metro-area networks We use data-plane XTRs in the stack of each mobility client/server. ClientXTRs and ServerXTRs are associated to EdgeRTRs. This structure allows for MobilityClients to "show up" at any location behind any network provider in a given mobility-network admin/NAT domain, and for any H3ServiceEID to be instantiated, moved, or failed-over to any cluster in any cloud-provider. LISP overlay enables these roaming mobility-network elements to communicate uninterrupted. This quality is insured by the LISP RFCs. The determination of identities for MobilityClients to always refer to the correct H3ServiceEID is insured by H3 geospatial HIDs. In this specification we assume semi-random association between ClientXTRs and EdgeRTRs applied by the AAA procedure. We assume that in a given metro edge a pool of EdgeRTRs can distribute the Mobility Clients load randomly between them and that EdgeRTRs are topologically equivalent. Each RTR uses LISP to tunnel traffic to and from other EdgeRTRs forMobilityClient and H3Service exchanges. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 10] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 To summarize the H3-LISP mobility-network layout: (1) Mobility-Clients traffic is tunneled via data-plane ClientXTRs ClientXTRs are associated to EdgeRTR (2) H3ServiceEID traffic is tunneled via data-plane ServerXTR ServerXTRs are associated to EdgeRTR (3) EdgeRTRs use mapping service to resolve unicast EIDs to RTR RLOCs EdgeRTRs also register to (Source, Group) H3ServiceEID multicasts MobilityClients <> ClientXTR EdgeRTR v v v < < < < LISP Mobility-Network Overlay < < < < v v > > > > EdgeRTR ServerXTR <> H3ServiceEID Figure 5: The Data Flow Between MobilityClients and H3ServiceEIDs 5. Mobility Unicast and Multicast Regardless of the way a given ClientXTR was associated with EdgeRTR, an authenticated MobilityClientEID can send: [64bit h3.15 HID::64bit tile-state] detections to the h3.rB H3ServiceEID. The EID can be calculated by clients algorithmically from the H3.15 localization. The ClientXTR encapsulates packet source MobilityClientEID dest H3ServiceEID from the ClientXTR with the destination of EdgeRTR RLOC. EdgeRTRs then re-encapsulate packets to a remote EdgeRTR. The remote EdgeRTR aggregating H3ServiceEIDs than re-encapsulates packets to the ServerXTR RLOC of the H3ServiceEID. The headers consist of the following fields: Outer headers size = 40 (IPv6) + 8 (UDP) + 8 (LISP) = 56 Inner headers size = 40 (IPv6) + 8 (UDP) + 4 (Nexagon Header) = 52 1500 (MTU) - 56 - 52 = 1392 bytes of effective payload size Nexagon Header Type allows for key-value (kv) tupples or value-key,key ..(vkkk) flooding using the same formats of key and value +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\ | Type |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/ Type 0:reserved Type 1:key-value, key-value.. 1392 / (8 + 8) = 87 pairs Type 2:value, key,key,key.. (1392 - 8) / 8 = 173 h3.rS IDs Type 3-255: unassigned Nexagon Header GZIP field: 0x000 no compression, or GZIP version. The compression refers to entire kv or vkkk payload. Nexagon Header Reserved bits Nexagon Header key and value count (in any format) * Reserved fields are specified as being set to 0 on transmission and ignored when received. Packets with unsupported gzip version ignored. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 11] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | + + | | | | + Source MobilityClientEID + | | | IPv6 + + | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | + + | | | | + Dest H3ServiceEID + | | | | + + | | | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = xxxx | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Type |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit State + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit State + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: Uploaded detections packet format Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 12] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 To Summarize Unicast Uploads: (1) MobilityClients can send detections localized to h3.rS tile. Detections sent to H3ServiceEIDs based on h3.rB HIDs (2) MobilityClientEID and H3ServiceEID HID are encapsulated: XTR <=> RTR <=> RTR <=> XTR (3) RTRs re-encapsulate original source-dest to ServerXTRs ServerXTRs decapsulate packets to H3ServiceEID Each H3Service is also an IP Multicast Source used to update subscribers on the aggregate state of the h3.rS tiles in the h3.rB area. We use [RFC8378] signal-free multicast to implement channels in the overlay. The mobility-network has many channels, with thousands subscribers per channel. MobilityClients driving through/subscribing to an h3.rB area can explicitly issue an [RFC4604] MLDv2 in order to subscribe, or, may be subscribed implicitly by the EdgeRTR. The advantage of explicit client MLDv2 registration as [RFC8378] trigger is that clients manage their own mobility multicast per driving-direction vectors, and that it allows for otherwise silent non uploading clients. The advantage of EdgeRTR implicit registration is that less signaling required. MLDv2 signaling messages are encapsulated between the ClientXTR and EdgeRTR, therefore there is no requirement for the underlying network to support native multicast. If native access multicast is supported then MobilityClient registration to H3ServiceEID safety channels may be integrated with it, in which case mobile packet-core element supporting it will use this standard to register with the appropriate Geolocation Service channels in its area. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 13] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 Multicast update packets are of the following structure: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | + + | | | | + Source H3ServiceEID + | | | IPv6 + + | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | + + | | | | + Group Address + | | | | + + | | | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Port = xxxx | Dest Port = xxxx | \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ UDP | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | |Nexagon +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / ~ Nexagons Payload ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: multicast update packet header Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 14] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Type = 1 |gzip | Reserved | Pair Count = X|Nexagon +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit State + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit State + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: multicast update payload, key-value, key-value.. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 15] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ | Type = 2 |gzip | Reserved |H3R15 Count = X|Nexagon +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / | | + 64bit State + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + 64bit h3.rS ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9: multicast update payload, value, key, key.. for larger areas The remote EdgeRTRs associated with MobilityClients in turn replicate the, packet to the MobilityClients registered with them. To Summarize: (1) EIDClients tune to h3.rB mobility updates using [RFC8378] EIDClient issue MLDv2 registration to H3ServiceEIDs ClientXTRs encapsulate MLDv2 to EdgeRTRs which registers (S,G). (2) ServerXTRs encapsulate updates to EdgeRTRs to map-resolve (S,G) RLOCs EdgeRTRs replicate mobility update and tunnel to registered EdgeRTRs. Remote EdgeRTRs replicate updates to ClientXTRs. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 16] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 6. Security Considerations The LISP mobility-network is inherently secure and private. All information is conveyed using provisioned Geolocation Services. MobilityClients receive information only by geospatial channels originating from a provisioned Geolocation Services, and not from any other source on this application specific LISP network. MobilityClients have no indication as to the origin of the raw data. In order to be able to use nexagon LISP mobility-network for a given period, the mobility clients go through a DNS/AAA stage by which they obtain their clientEID identifiers-credentials and the RLOCs of EdgeRTRs they may use as gateways to the network. This MobilityClient <> EdgeRTR interface is the most sensitive in this network to privacy and security considerations. The traffic on the MobilityClient<>EdgeRTR interface is tunneled, and its UDP content may be encrypted; still, the EdgeRTR will know based on the LISP headers alone the MobilityClient RLOC and h3.rB geospatial area to which a given client uploads form / subscribes to. For this reason we envision the ability of enterprise to "bring their own" EdgeRTRs. For example a car OEM or mobile carrier offering EdgeRTRs on behalf of vehicles for use with Geolocation Services. BYO-RTR masks individual clients' RLOC to h3.rB association. BYO-RTR is pre-provisioned to be able to use the mapping system and be on white-lists of EdgeRTRs aggregating H3ServiceEIDs. If the EdgeRTR functionality is delivered by a carrier then the only entity which can correlate underlay IP, User, and Geo-location is the regulated carrier, which can do so anyway. LISP interoperability enables this. Beyond this hop, the mapping system does not hold MobilityClientEIDs, and remote EdgeRTRs are only aware of MobilityClient ephemeral EIDs, not actual RLOC or any other mobile-device identifiers. EdgeRTRs register in the mapping (S,G) h3.rB multicast groups. Which clients use which EdgeRTR is not in the mapping system, only the AAA server is aware of that. The H3ServiceEIDs themselves decrypt and parse actual h3.rS detections; they also consider during this MobilityClientEID credentials to avoid "fake-news" or bad poorley localized detections, but again these are only temporary EIDs allocated to clients in order to be able to use the mobility network and not for their actual IP. H3Services are associated their EdgeRTRs, provisioned n the EdgeRTRs, and optionally also in the mapping system. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 17] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 In summary of main risk mitigations for the lisp-nexagon interface: (1) tapping: all communications are through tunnels therefore may be encrypted using IP-Sec or other supported point to point underlay standards. (2) spoofing: it is very hard to guess a MobilityClientEID valid for a short period of time. Clients and H3Services EIDs are provisioned in EdgeRTRs, Clients using the AAA procedure, H3Services via dev-ops. (3) credibility: the interface crowd-sources geo-state and does not assume to trust single detections. Credit history track to MobilityClientEIDs by as part of normal H3Services fact checking, aggregate scores affect AAA credentials. (4) privacy: Only EdgeRTRs are aware of both clients' RLOC and geo-location, only AAA is aware of client IDs credentials and credit but not geo-location. Aggregate credit score span all H3Services administratively without source. 7. Acknowledgments We would like to kindly thank Joel Halperin for helping structure the AAA section and Geo-Privacy provisions, Luigi Lannone for promoting such LISP Compute First Networking (CFN) use-cases, helping structure the IANA section, and shepherding this draft to completion. We would like to thank George Ericson for help clarifying Geolocation Services terminology through joint work on the AECC specifications and papers, and Lei Zhong for helping term the dataflow virtualization solution. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 18] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 8. IANA Considerations This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126]. IANA is asked to create a registry named NEXAGON Parameters. Such registry should be populated with the following sub registries. State Enumeration Field 0x0: Traffic Direction: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Lane North | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Lane North + 30 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Lane North + 60 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | Lane North + 90 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | Lane North + 120 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | Lane North + 150 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | Lane North + 180 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | Lane North + 210 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Lane North + 240 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | Lane North + 270 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | Lane North + 300 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | Lane North + 330 | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Junction | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Shoulder | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Sidewalk | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 19] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x1: Persistent Condition: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Pothole Light | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Pothole Deep | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Speed-bump Low | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | Speed-bump High | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | Icy | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | Flooded | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | Snow-cover | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | Deep Snow | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Cone | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | Gravel | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | Choppy | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | Blind-Curve | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Steep | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Low-bridge | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Other | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 20] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x2: Transient Condition: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Jaywalker | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Bike or Scooter | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Stopped Vehicle | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | Moving on Shoulder | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | First Responder | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | Sudden Slowdown | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | Oversize Vehicle | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | Light/Sign Breach | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Collision Light | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | Collision Severe | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | Collision Debris | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | Collision Course | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Vehicle Hard Brake | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Vehicle Sharp Turn | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Freed-up Parking | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 21] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x3: Traffic-light Counter: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | 1 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | 2 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | 3 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | 4 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | 5 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | 6 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | 7 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | 8 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | 9 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | 10 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | 20 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | 30 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | 60 Second to Green | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Green Now | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Red Now | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 22] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x4: Impacted Tile: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Epicenter | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | 2 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | 3 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | 4 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | 5 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | 6 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | 7 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | 8 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | 9 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | 10 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | 20 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | 30 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | 60 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | <100 Tiles Away | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | <200 Tiles Away | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 23] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x5: Expected Duration: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Next 1 Second | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Next 5 Seconds | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Next 10 Seconds | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | Next 20 Seconds | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | Next 40 Seconds | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | Next 60 Seconds | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | Next 2 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | Next 3 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Next 4 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | Next 5 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | Next 10 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | Next 15 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Next 30 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Next 60 Minutes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Next 24 Hours | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 24] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x6: Lane Right Sign: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Yield | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Speed Limit | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Straight Only | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | No Straight | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | Right Only | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | No Right | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | Left Only | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | No Left | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Right Straight | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | Left Straight | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | No U Turn | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | No Left or U | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Bike Lane | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | HOV Lane | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Stop | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 25] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x7: Movement Sign: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Keep Right | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Keep Left | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Stay in Lane | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | Do Not Enter | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | No Trucks | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | No Bikes | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | No Peds | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | One Way | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Parking | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | No Parking | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | No Standing | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | No Passing | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Loading Zone | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Rail Crossing | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | School Zone | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 26] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x8: Curves & Intersections: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | Turns Left | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | Turns Right | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | Curves Left | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | Curves Right | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | Reverses Left | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | Reverses Right | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | Winding Road | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | Hair Pin | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | Pretzel Turn | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | Cross Roads | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | Cross T | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | Cross Y | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | Circle | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | Lane Ends | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | Road Narrows | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 27] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0x9: Tile Traffic Speed: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | < 1 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | < 2 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | < 3 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | < 4 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | < 5 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | < 6 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | < 7 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | < 8 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | < 9 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | < 10 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | < 20 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | < 30 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | < 40 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | < 50 m/sec | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | > 50 m/sec | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 28] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 State Enumeration Field 0xA: Pedestrian Curb Density: +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | Value | Description | Reference | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ | 0x0 | Null | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x1 | 100% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x2 | 95% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x3 | 90% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x4 | 85% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x5 | 80% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x6 | 70% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x7 | 60% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x8 | 50% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0x9 | 40% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xA | 30% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xB | 20% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xC | 15% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xD | 10% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xE | 5% | [This Document] | | | | | | 0xF | No Peds | [This Document] | +-------+--------------------+-----------------+ State enumeration fields 0xB, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF, are unassigned. IANA can assign them on a "First Come First Served" basis according to [RFC8126]. Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 29] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 9. Normative References [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-38 (work in progress), May 2020. [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-31 (work in progress), May 2020. [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604, August 2006, . [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012, . [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, . [RFC8378] Farinacci, D., Moreno, V., "Signal-Free Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC8378, DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018, . Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 30] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 Authors' Addresses Sharon Barkai Nexar CA USA Email: sbarkai@gmail.com Bruno Fernandez-Ruiz Nexar London UK Email: b@getnexar.com Rotem Tamir Nexar Israel rotemtamir@getnexar.com Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA Email: natal@cisco.com Fabio Maino Cisco Systems 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA Email: fmaino@cisco.com Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 31] Internet-Draft LISP June 2022 Albert Cabellos-Aparicio Technical University of Catalonia Barcelona Spain Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu Jordi Paillisse-Vilanova Technical University of Catalonia Barcelona Spain Email: jordip@ac.upc.edu Dino Farinacci lispers.net San Jose, CA USA Email: farinacci@gmail.com Barkai, et al. Expires July 30, 2022 [Page 32]