<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<rfc category="exp" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-06">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
  
<!--  Edited by Dino Farinacci farinacci@gmail.com -->

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>

<front>
  <title>LISP Distinguished Name Encoding</title>

  <author initials='D' surname="Farinacci" fullname='Dino Farinacci'>
    <organization>lispers.net</organization>
    <address>
      <postal>
      <street></street>
      <city>San Jose</city> <region>CA</region>
      <code></code>
      <country>USA</country>
      </postal>
      <email>farinacci@gmail.com</email>
    </address>
  </author>

  <date />
  <area>Routing Area</area>
  <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>
  <keyword>template</keyword>

  <abstract>
    <t>This draft defines how to use the AFI=17 Distinguished Names in LISP.</t>
  </abstract>

  <note title="Requirements Language">
    <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
    NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
    in this document are to be interpreted as described in <xref
    target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
  </note>
</front>

<middle>
  <section title="Introduction">
    <t>The LISP architecture and protocols <xref target="RFC9300" />
    introduces two new numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs)
    and Routing Locators (RLOCs) which are intended to replace most
    use of IP addresses on the Internet. To provide flexibility for
    current and future applications, these values can be encoded in
    LISP control messages using a general syntax that includes Address
    Family Identifier (AFI) <xref target="RFC3232" />.</t>

    <t>The length of the value field is implicit in the type of
    address that follows. For AFI 17, a Distinguished Name can be
    encoded. A name can be a variable length field so the length
    cannot be determined solely from the AFI value 17. This draft
    defines a termination character, an 8-bit value of 0 to be used as
    a string terminator so the length can be determined.</t>

    <t>LISP Distinguished Names are useful when encoded either in
    EID-Records or RLOC-records in LISP control messages. As EIDs,
    they can be registered in the mapping system to find resources,
    services, or simply used as a self-documenting feature that
    accompany other address specific EIDs. As RLOCs, Distinguished
    Names, along with RLOC specific addresses and parameters, can be
    used as labels to identify equipment type, location, or any
    self-documenting string a registering device desires to
    convey.</t>
    <t><vspace blankLines='30' /></t>
  </section>

  <section title="Definition of Terms">
    <t><list style="hanging">
      <t hangText="Address Family Identifier (AFI):">a term used to
      describe an address encoding in a packet. An address family
      currently defined for IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. See <xref
      target="IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-REGISTRY" /> and <xref
      target="RFC3232" /> for details on other types of information
      that can be AFI encoded.</t>
    </list></t>
  </section>

  <section title="Distinguished Name Format">
    <figure>
      <preamble>An AFI=17 Distinguished Name is encoded as:</preamble>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
  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 = 17           |       ASCII String ...        | 
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |               ...  ASCII String             |       0         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ]]></artwork>
      <postamble />
    </figure>
	    
    <t>The string of characters are encoded in the ASCII character-set
    definition <xref target="RFC0020" />.</t>

    <t>When Distinguished Names are encoded for EIDs, the EID-Prefix
    length of the EIDs as they appear in EID-Records for all LISP
    control messages is the length of the string in bits (include the
    null 0 byte). Where Distinguished Names are encoded anywhere else
    (i.e. nested in LCAF encodings), then any length field is the
    length of the ASCII string including the null 0 byte in units of
    bytes.</t>
    <t><vspace blankLines='30' /></t>
  </section>

   <section title="Mapping System Lookups for Distinguished Name EIDs">
     <t>Distinguished Name EID lookups MUST carry as an EID-Prefix length equal to
     the length of the name string. This instructs the mapping system to do either
     an exact match or longest match lookup.</t>

     <t>If the Distinguished Name EID is registered with the same length as the length
     in a Map-Request, the Map-Server
     (when configured for proxy Map-Replying) returns an exact match lookup with the
     same EID-Prefix length. If a less specific name is registered, then the Map-Server
     returns the registered name with the registered EID-Prefix length.</t>

     <t>For example, if the registered EID name is "ietf" with
     EID-prefix length of 40 bits (the length of string "ietf" plus
     the null byte is 5 bytes), and a Map-Request is received for EID
     name "ietf.lisp" with an EID-prefix length of 80 bits, the Map-Server
     will return EID "ietf" with length of 40 bits.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="Example Use-Cases" anchor="USECASE">
    <t>This section identifies three specific use-cases examples for the
    Distinguished Name format. Two are used for an EID encoding and
    one for a RLOC-record encoding. When storing public keys in the
    mapping system, as in <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth"/>, a
    well known format for a public-key hash can be encoded as a
    Distinguished Name. When street location to GPS coordinate
    mappings exist in the mapping system, as in <xref
    target="I-D.ietf-lisp-geo"/>, the street location can be a
    free form ASCII representation (with whitespace characters)
    encoded as a Distinguished Name. An RLOC that describes an xTR
    behind a NAT device can be identified by its router name, as in
    <xref target="I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat"/>, uses a
    Distinguished Name encoding. As well as identifying the router
    name (neither an EID or an RLOC) in NAT Info-Request messages uses
    Distinguished Name encodings.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="Name Collision Considerations">
    <t>When a Distinguished Name encoding is used to format an EID,
    the uniqueness and allocation concerns are no different than
    registering IPv4 or IPv6 EIDs to the mapping system. See <xref
    target="RFC9301"/> for more details. Also, the use-case documents
    specified in <xref target="USECASE"/> provide allocation
    recommendations for their specific uses.</t>

    <t>It is RECOMMENDED that each use-case register their Distinguish
    Names with a unique Instance-ID. For any use-cases which require
    different uses for Distinguish Names within an Instance-ID MUST
    define their own Instance-ID and structure syntax for the name
    registered to the Mapping System. See the encoding procedures in
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn"/> for an example.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="Security Considerations">
    <t>There are no security considerations.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="IANA Considerations">
    <t>The code-point values in this specification are already
    allocated in <xref target="IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-REGISTRY" />.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="Sample LISP Distinguished Name (DN) Deployment Experience">
    <t>Practical implementations of the LISP Distinguished Name
    specification have been running in production networks for some
    time. The following sections provide some examples of its usage
    and lessons gathered out of the experience.</t>

    <section title="DNs to Advertise Specific Device Roles or Functions">
      <t>In a practical implementation of <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity" /> on LISP
      deployments, routers running as Proxy-ETRs register their role
      with the Mapping System in order to attract traffic destined for
      external networks. Practical implementations of this
      functionality make use of a Distinguished Name as an EID to
      identify the Proxy-ETR role in a Map-Registration.</t>
    
      <t>In this case all Proxy-ETRs supporting this function register
      a common Distinguished Name together with their own offered
      locator. The Mapping-System aggregates the locators received
      from all Proxy-ETRs as a common locator-set that is associated
      to this DN EID. The Distinguished Name in this case serves as a
      common reference EID that can be subscribed to (or requested) to
      dynamically gather this pETR list as specified in the draft.</t>

      <t>The use of a Distinguished Name in this case provides
      descriptive information about the role being registered and
      allows the Mapping System to form locator-sets associated to
      specific role. These locator-sets can be distributed on-demand
      based on using the shared DN as EID. It also allows the network
      admin and the Mapping System to selectively choose what roles
      and functions can be registered and distributed to the rest of
      the participants in the network.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="DNs to Drive xTR On-Boarding Procedures">
      <t>Following the LISP reliable transport <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport" />, ETRs
      that plan to switch to using a reliable transport to hold
      registrations first need to start with traditional UDP
      registrations. The UDP registration allows the Map-Server to
      perform basic authentication of the ETR and create the necessary
      state to permit the reliable transport session to go through
      (e.g., establish a passive open of TCP port 4342 and add the ETR
      RLOC to the list allowed to establish a session).</t>
      
      <t>In the basic implementation of this process, the ETRs need to
      wait until local mappings are available and ready to be
      registered with the Mapping System. Even more, when the mapping
      system is distributed, the ETR requires to have one specific
      mapping ready to be registered with each one of the relevant
      Map-Servers. This process may delay the onboarding of ETRs with
      the Mapping System so that they can switch to using a reliable
      transport. This can also lead to generating unnecessary
      signaling as a reaction to certain triggers like local port
      flaps and device failures.</t>
      
      <t>The use of dedicated name registrations allows driving this
      initial ETR on-boarding on the Mapping System as a deterministic
      process that does not depend on the availability of other
      mappings. It also provides more stability to the reliable
      transport session to survive through transient events.</t>
      
      <t>In practice, LISP deployments use dedicated Distinguished
      Names that are registered as soon as xTRs come online with all
      the necessary Map-Servers in the Mapping System. The mapping
      with the dedicated DN together with the RLOCs of each eTR in the
      locator-set is used to drive the initial UDP registration and
      also to keep the reliable transport state stable through network
      condition changes. On the Map-Server, these DN registrations
      facilitate setting up the necessary state to onboard new eRs
      rapidly and in a more deterministic manner.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="DNs for NAT-Traversal">
      <t>The open source lispers.net NAT-Traversal implementation <xref
      target="I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat"/> has had 10 years
      of deployment experience using Distinguished Names for
      documenting xTRs versus RTRs as they appear in an locator-set.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="DNs for Self-Documenting RLOC Names">
      <t>The open source lispers.net implementation has had 10 years of
      self-documenting RLOC names in production and pilot
      environments. The RLOC name is encoded with the RLOC address in
      Distinguished Name format.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="DNs used as EID Names">
      <t>The open source lispers.net implementation has had 10 years of deployment
      experience allowing xTRs to register EIDs as Distinguished
      Names. The LISP Mapping System can be used as a DNS proxy for
      Name-to-EID-address or Name-to-RLOC-address mappings. The
      implementation also supports Name-to-Public-Key mappings to
      provide key management features in <xref
      target="I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth" />.</t>
    </section>

  </section>
</middle>

<back>
  <references title='Normative References'>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119'?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3232'?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9300'?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9301'?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.0020'?>

    <reference anchor="IANA-ADDRESS-FAMILY-REGISTRY">
      <front>
	    <title>IANA Address Family Numbers Registry</title>
        <author fullname="IANA"/>
	    <date year="2023" month="December" />
      </front>
      <refcontent>https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/</refcontent>
    </reference>

  </references>

  <references title='Informative References'>
    <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-ecdsa-auth.xml'?>
    <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-geo.xml'?>
    <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat.xml'?>
    <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn.xml'?>
    <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity.xml'?>
    <?rfc include='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-lisp-map-server-reliable-transport.xml'?>
  </references>

  <section title="Acknowledgments">
    <t>The author would like to thank the LISP WG for their review and
    acceptance of this draft. And a special thank you goes to Marc
    Portoles for moving this document through the process and providing deployment
    experience samples.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="Document Change Log">

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-06">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted April 2024.</t>
        <t>Add Deployment Experience section for standards track requirements.</t>
	    <t>Update references.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-05">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted December 2023.</t>
	    <t>Update IANA AFI reference.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-04">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted December 2023.</t>
        <t>More comments from Alberto. Change to standard spellings throughout.</t>
        <t>Add RFC 2119 boilerplate.</t>
	    <t>Update reference RFC1700 to RFC3232.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-03">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted December 2023.</t>
        <t>Address comments from Alberto, document shepherd.</t>
	    <t>Update references.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-02">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted August 2023.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-01">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted February 2023.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
	    <t>Change 68**.bis references to proposed RFC references.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-00">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted August 2022.</t>
        <t>Move individual submission to LISP WG document.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-15">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted July 2022.</t>
        <t>Added more clarity text about how using VPNs (instance-ID encoding) addresses name
        collisions from multiple use-cases.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-14">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted May 2022.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-13">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted November 2021.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-12">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted May 2021.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-11">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted November 2020.</t>
        <t>Made changes to reflect working group comments.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-10">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted August 2020.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-09">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted March 2020.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-08">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted September 2019.</t>
	    <t>Update references and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-07">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted March 2019.</t>
	    <t>Update referenes and document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-06">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted September 2018.</t>
	    <t>Update document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-05">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted March 2018.</t>
	    <t>Update document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-04">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted September 2017.</t>
	    <t>Update document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-03">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted March 2017.</t>
	<t>Update document expiry timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-02">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted October 2016.</t>
	<t>Add a comment that the distinguished-name encoding is 
	restricted to ASCII character encodings only.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-01">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Submitted October 2016.</t>
	<t>Update document timer.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-name-encoding-00">
      <t><list style="symbols">
        <t>Initial draft submitted April 2016.</t>
      </list></t>
    </section>

  </section>
</back>
</rfc>
