LISP M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft C. Jacquenet
Obsoletes: 8113 (if approved) Orange
Intended status: Standards Track January 25, 2019
Expires: July 29, 2019

Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA Registry for Packet Type Allocations


This document specifies a Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting experiments without consuming a LISP packet type codepoint for each extension.

This document obsoletes RFC 8113.

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

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 29, 2019.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2019 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 ( 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

The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification, [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], defines a set of primitives that are identified with a packet type code. Several extensions have been proposed to add more LISP functionalities. It is expected that additional LISP extensions will be proposed in the future.

The "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section 5) is used to ease the tracking of LISP message types.

Because of the limited type space [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the need to conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this document specifies a shared LISP extension message type and describes a procedure for registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see Section 3). Concretely, one single LISP message type code is dedicated to future LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely identify a given LISP extension making use of the shared LISP extension message type. These identifiers are selected by the author(s) of the corresponding LISP specification that introduces a new LISP extension message type.

2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type

Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension message. The type field MUST be set to 15 (see Section 5).

        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=15|        Sub-type       |   extension-specific          |
       //                    extension-specific                       //
       //                                                             //

Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type

Section 5.2).

The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the message is specified in the corresponding specification document.

4. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce any additional security issues other than those discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

5. IANA Considerations

5.1. LISP Packet Types

IANA has created a protocol registry for LISP Packet Types, numbered 0-15.

Values can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP packet type may indicate a preferred value in the corresponding IANA sections.

IANA is requested to replace the reference to RFC8113 with the RFC number to be assigned to this document.

Also, IANA is requested to update the table as follows:


Message                           Code    Reference
================================= ==== ===============
LISP Shared Extension Message     15      [RFC8113]

Message                           Code    Reference
================================= ==== ===============
LISP Shared Extension Message     15      [ThisDocument]

5.2. Sub-Types

IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types" registry. IANA is requested to update that registry by replacing the reference to RFC8113 with the RFC number to be assigned to this document.

The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the exhaustion of the LISP Packet types.

The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure should provide IANA with the desired codepoint and a point of contact; providing a short description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen usage of the extension message is also encouraged.

6. Changes from RFC 8113

The following changes were made from RFC 8113:

7. Acknowledgments

This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-009-X.

Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for the review.

Thanks to Geoff Huston, Brian Carpenter, Barry Leiba, and Suresh Krishnan for the review.

8. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D. and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-23, December 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.

Authors' Addresses

Mohamed Boucadair Orange Rennes, 35000 France EMail:
Christian Jacquenet Orange Rennes, 35000 France EMail: