path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9300.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      D. Farinacci
Request for Comments: 9300                                   lispers.net
Obsoletes: 6830                                                V. Fuller
Category: Standards Track                    vaf.net Internet Consulting
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 D. Meyer
                                                               1-4-5.net
                                                                D. Lewis
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        A. Cabellos, Ed.
                                    Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
                                                            October 2022


               The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)

Abstract

   This document describes the data plane protocol for the Locator/ID
   Separation Protocol (LISP).  LISP defines two namespaces: Endpoint
   Identifiers (EIDs), which identify end hosts; and Routing Locators
   (RLOCs), which identify network attachment points.  With this, LISP
   effectively separates control from data and allows routers to create
   overlay networks.  LISP-capable routers exchange encapsulated packets
   according to EID-to-RLOC mappings stored in a local Map-Cache.

   LISP requires no change to either host protocol stacks or underlay
   routers and offers Traffic Engineering (TE), multihoming, and
   mobility, among other features.

   This document obsoletes RFC 6830.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300.

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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Scope of Applicability
   2.  Requirements Notation
   3.  Definitions of Terms
   4.  Basic Overview
     4.1.  Deployment on the Public Internet
     4.2.  Packet Flow Sequence
   5.  LISP Encapsulation Details
     5.1.  LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format
     5.2.  LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format
     5.3.  Tunnel Header Field Descriptions
   6.  LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache
   7.  Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets
     7.1.  A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling
     7.2.  A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling
   8.  Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP
   9.  Routing Locator Selection
   10. Routing Locator Reachability
     10.1.  Echo-Nonce Algorithm
   11. EID Reachability within a LISP Site
   12. Routing Locator Hashing
   13. Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings
     13.1.  Locator-Status-Bits
     13.2.  Database Map-Versioning
   14. Multicast Considerations
   15. Router Performance Considerations
   16. Security Considerations
   17. Network Management Considerations
   18. Changes since RFC 6830
   19. IANA Considerations
     19.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers
   20. References
     20.1.  Normative References
     20.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP).
   LISP is an encapsulation protocol built around the fundamental idea
   of separating the topological location of a network attachment point
   from the node's identity [CHIAPPA].  As a result, LISP creates two
   namespaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs), which are used to identify
   end hosts (e.g., nodes or Virtual Machines); and routable Routing
   Locators (RLOCs), which are used to identify network attachment
   points.  LISP then defines functions for mapping between the two
   namespaces and for encapsulating traffic originated by devices using
   non-routable EIDs for transport across a network infrastructure that
   routes and forwards using RLOCs.  LISP encapsulation uses a dynamic
   form of tunneling where no static provisioning is required or
   necessary.

   LISP is an overlay protocol that separates control from data; this
   document specifies the data plane as well as how LISP-capable routers
   (Tunnel Routers) exchange packets by encapsulating them to the
   appropriate location.  Tunnel Routers are equipped with a cache,
   called the Map-Cache, that contains EID-to-RLOC mappings.  The Map-
   Cache is populated using the LISP control plane protocol [RFC9301].

   LISP does not require changes to either the host protocol stack or
   underlay routers.  By separating the EID from the RLOC space, LISP
   offers native Traffic Engineering (TE), multihoming, and mobility,
   among other features.

   Creation of LISP was initially motivated by discussions during the
   IAB-sponsored Routing and Addressing Workshop held in Amsterdam in
   October 2006 (see [RFC4984]).

   This document specifies the LISP data plane encapsulation and other
   LISP forwarding node functionality while [RFC9301] specifies the LISP
   control plane.  LISP deployment guidelines can be found in [RFC7215],
   and [RFC6835] describes considerations for network operational
   management.  Finally, [RFC9299] describes the LISP architecture.

   This document obsoletes RFC 6830.

1.1.  Scope of Applicability

   LISP was originally developed to address the Internet-wide route
   scaling problem [RFC4984].  While there are a number of approaches of
   interest for that problem, as LISP has been developed and refined, a
   large number of other ways to use LISP have been found and are being
   implemented.  As such, the design and development of LISP have
   changed so as to focus on these use cases.  The common property of
   these uses is a large set of cooperating entities seeking to
   communicate over the public Internet or other large underlay IP
   infrastructures while keeping the addressing and topology of the
   cooperating entities separate from the underlay and Internet
   topology, routing, and addressing.

2.  Requirements Notation

   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.  Definitions of Terms

   Address Family Identifier (AFI):  "AFI" is a term used to describe an
      address encoding in a packet.  An address family is an address
      format found in data plane packet headers, for example, an IPv4
      address or an IPv6 address.  See [AFN], [RFC2453], [RFC2677], and
      [RFC4760] for details.  An AFI value of 0 used in this
      specification indicates an unspecified encoded address where the
      length of the address is 0 octets following the 16-bit AFI value
      of 0.

   Anycast Address:  "Anycast address" refers to the same IPv4 or IPv6
      address configured and used on multiple systems at the same time.
      An EID or RLOC can be an anycast address in each of their own
      address spaces.

   Client-side:  "Client-side" is a term used in this document to
      indicate a connection initiation attempt by an end-system
      represented by an EID.

   Egress Tunnel Router (ETR):  An ETR is a router that accepts an IP
      packet where the destination address in the "outer" IP header is
      one of its own RLOCs.  The router strips the "outer" header and
      forwards the packet based on the next IP header found.  In
      general, an ETR receives LISP-encapsulated IP packets from the
      Internet on one side and sends decapsulated IP packets to site
      end-systems on the other side.  ETR functionality does not have to
      be limited to a router device.  A server host can be the endpoint
      of a LISP tunnel as well.

   EID-to-RLOC Database:  The EID-to-RLOC Database is a distributed
      database that contains all known EID-Prefix-to-RLOC mappings.
      Each potential ETR typically contains a small piece of the
      database: the EID-to-RLOC mappings for the EID-Prefixes "behind"
      the router.  These map to one of the router's own IP addresses
      that are routable on the underlay.  Note that there MAY be
      transient conditions when the EID-Prefix for the LISP site and
      Locator-Set for each EID-Prefix may not be the same on all ETRs.
      This has no negative implications, since a partial set of Locators
      can be used.

   EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache:  The EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache is a generally
      short-lived, on-demand table in an Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR)
      that stores, tracks, and is responsible for timing out and
      otherwise validating EID-to-RLOC mappings.  This cache is distinct
      from the full "database" of EID-to-RLOC mappings; it is dynamic,
      local to the ITR(s), and relatively small, while the database is
      distributed, relatively static, and much more widely scoped to
      LISP nodes.

   EID-Prefix:  An EID-Prefix is a power-of-two block of EIDs that are
      allocated to a site by an address allocation authority.  EID-
      Prefixes are associated with a set of RLOC addresses.  EID-Prefix
      allocations can be broken up into smaller blocks when an RLOC-Set
      is to be associated with the larger EID-Prefix block.

   End-System:  An end-system is an IPv4 or IPv6 device that originates
      packets with a single IPv4 or IPv6 header.  The end-system
      supplies an EID value for the destination address field of the IP
      header when communicating outside of its routing domain.  An end-
      system can be a host computer, a switch or router device, or any
      network appliance.

   Endpoint ID (EID):  An EID is a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for
      IPv6) value that identifies a host.  EIDs are generally only found
      in the source and destination address fields of the first
      (innermost) LISP header of a packet.  The host obtains a
      destination EID through a Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034]
      lookup or Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] exchange.
      This behavior does not change when LISP is in use.  The source EID
      is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a host's "local"
      IP address.  An EID used on the public Internet MUST have the same
      properties as any other IP address used in that manner; this
      means, among other things, that it MUST be unique.  An EID is
      allocated to a host from an EID-Prefix block associated with the
      site where the host is located.  An EID can be used by a host to
      refer to other hosts.  Note that EID blocks MAY be assigned in a
      hierarchical manner, independent of the network topology, to
      facilitate scaling of the mapping database.  In addition, an EID
      block assigned to a site MAY have site-local structure
      (subnetting) for routing within the site; this structure is not
      visible to the underlay routing system.  In theory, the bit string
      that represents an EID for one device can represent an RLOC for a
      different device.  When discussing other Locator/ID separation
      proposals, any references to an EID in this document will refer to
      a LISP EID.

   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR):  An ITR is a router that resides in a
      LISP site.  Packets sent by sources inside of the LISP site to
      destinations outside of the site are candidates for encapsulation
      by the ITR.  The ITR treats the IP destination address as an EID
      and performs an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  The router then
      prepends an "outer" IP header with one of its routable RLOCs (in
      the RLOC space) in the source address field and the result of the
      mapping lookup in the destination address field.  Note that this
      destination RLOC may be an intermediate, proxy device that has
      better knowledge of the EID-to-RLOC mapping closer to the
      destination EID.  In general, an ITR receives IP packets from site
      end-systems on one side and sends LISP-encapsulated IP packets
      toward the Internet on the other side.

   LISP Header:  "LISP header" is a term used in this document to refer
      to the outer IPv4 or IPv6 header, a UDP header, and a LISP-
      specific 8-octet header, all of which follow the UDP header.  An
      ITR prepends LISP headers on packets, and an ETR strips them.

   LISP Router:  A LISP router is a router that performs the functions
      of any or all of the following: ITRs, ETRs, Re-encapsulating
      Tunneling Routers (RTRs), Proxy-ITRs (PITRs), or Proxy-ETRs
      (PETRs).

   LISP Site:  A LISP site is a set of routers in an edge network that
      are under a single technical administration.  LISP routers that
      reside in the edge network are the demarcation points to separate
      the edge network from the core network.

   Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs):  Locator-Status-Bits are present in the
      LISP header.  They are used by ITRs to inform ETRs about the up/
      down status of all ETRs at the local site.  These bits are used as
      a hint to convey up/down router status and not path reachability
      status.  The LSBs can be verified by use of one of the Locator
      reachability algorithms described in Section 10.  An ETR MUST rate
      limit the action it takes when it detects changes in the Locator-
      Status-Bits.

   Proxy-ETR (PETR):  A PETR is defined and described in [RFC6832].  A
      PETR acts like an ETR but does so on behalf of LISP sites that
      send packets to destinations at non-LISP sites.

   Proxy-ITR (PITR):  A PITR is defined and described in [RFC6832].  A
      PITR acts like an ITR but does so on behalf of non-LISP sites that
      send packets to destinations at LISP sites.

   Recursive Tunneling:  Recursive Tunneling occurs when a packet has
      more than one LISP IP header.  Additional layers of tunneling MAY
      be employed to implement Traffic Engineering or other rerouting as
      needed.  When this is done, an additional "outer" LISP header is
      added, and the original RLOCs are preserved in the "inner" header.

   Re-encapsulating Tunneling Router (RTR):  An RTR acts like an ETR to
      remove a LISP header, then acts as an ITR to prepend a new LISP
      header.  This is known as Re-encapsulating Tunneling.  Doing this
      allows a packet to be rerouted by the RTR without adding the
      overhead of additional tunnel headers.  When using multiple
      mapping database systems, care must be taken to not create re-
      encapsulation loops through misconfiguration.

   Route-Returnability:  Route-returnability is an assumption that the
      underlying routing system will deliver packets to the destination.
      When combined with a nonce that is provided by a sender and
      returned by a receiver, this limits off-path data insertion.  A
      route-returnability check is verified when a message is sent with
      a nonce, another message is returned with the same nonce, and the
      destination of the original message appears as the source of the
      returned message.

   Routing Locator (RLOC):  An RLOC is an IPv4 address [RFC0791] or IPv6
      address [RFC8200] of an Egress Tunnel Router (ETR).  An RLOC is
      the output of an EID-to-RLOC mapping lookup.  An EID maps to zero
      or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are numbered from blocks that are
      assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the
      underlay network, where the topology is defined by the
      connectivity of provider networks.  Multiple RLOCs can be assigned
      to the same ETR device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.

   Server-side:  "Server-side" is a term used in this document to
      indicate that a connection initiation attempt is being accepted
      for a destination EID.

   xTR:  An xTR is a reference to an ITR or ETR when direction of data
      flow is not part of the context description.  "xTR" refers to the
      router that is the tunnel endpoint and is used synonymously with
      the term "Tunnel Router".  For example, "An xTR can be located at
      the Customer Edge (CE) router" indicates both ITR and ETR
      functionality at the CE router.

4.  Basic Overview

   One key concept of LISP is that end-systems operate the same way when
   LISP is not in use as well as when LISP is in use.  The IP addresses
   that hosts use for tracking sockets and connections, and for sending
   and receiving packets, do not change.  In LISP terminology, these IP
   addresses are called Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs).

   Routers continue to forward packets based on IP destination
   addresses.  When a packet is LISP encapsulated, these addresses are
   referred to as RLOCs.  Most routers along a path between two hosts
   will not change; they continue to perform routing/forwarding lookups
   on the destination addresses.  For routers between the source host
   and the ITR as well as routers from the ETR to the destination host,
   the destination address is an EID.  For the routers between the ITR
   and the ETR, the destination address is an RLOC.

   Another key LISP concept is the "Tunnel Router".  A Tunnel Router
   prepends LISP headers on host-originated packets and strips them
   prior to final delivery to their destination.  The IP addresses in
   this "outer header" are RLOCs.  During end-to-end packet exchange
   between two Internet hosts, an ITR prepends a new LISP header to each
   packet, and an ETR strips the new header.  The ITR performs EID-to-
   RLOC lookups to determine the routing path to the ETR, which has the
   RLOC as one of its IP addresses.

   Some basic rules governing LISP are:

   *  End-systems only send to addresses that are EIDs.  EIDs are
      typically IP addresses assigned to hosts (other types of EIDs are
      supported by LISP; see [RFC8060] for further information).  End-
      systems don't know that addresses are EIDs versus RLOCs but assume
      that packets get to their intended destinations.  In a system
      where LISP is deployed, LISP routers intercept EID-addressed
      packets and assist in delivering them across the network core
      where EIDs cannot be routed.  The procedure a host uses to send IP
      packets does not change.

   *  LISP routers prepend and strip outer headers with RLOC addresses.
      See Section 4.2 for details.

   *  RLOCs are always IP addresses assigned to routers, preferably
      topologically oriented addresses from provider Classless Inter-
      Domain Routing (CIDR) blocks.

   *  When a router originates packets, it MAY use as a source address
      either an EID or RLOC.  When acting as a host (e.g., when
      terminating a transport session such as Secure Shell (SSH),
      TELNET, or the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)), it MAY
      use an EID that is explicitly assigned for that purpose.  An EID
      that identifies the router as a host MUST NOT be used as an RLOC;
      an EID is only routable within the scope of a site.  A typical BGP
      configuration might demonstrate this "hybrid" EID/RLOC usage where
      a router could use its "host-like" EID to terminate internal BGP
      (iBGP) sessions to other routers in a site while at the same time
      using RLOCs to terminate external BGP (eBGP) sessions to routers
      outside the site.

   *  Packets with EIDs in them are not expected to be delivered end to
      end in the absence of an EID-to-RLOC mapping operation.  They are
      expected to be used locally for intra-site communication or to be
      encapsulated for inter-site communication.

   *  EIDs MAY also be structured (subnetted) in a manner suitable for
      local routing within an Autonomous System (AS).

   An additional LISP header MAY be prepended to packets by a TE-ITR
   when rerouting of the path for a packet is desired.  A potential use
   case for this would be an ISP router that needs to perform Traffic
   Engineering for packets flowing through its network.  In such a
   situation, termed "Recursive Tunneling", an ISP transit acts as an
   additional ITR, and the destination RLOC it uses for the new
   prepended header would be either a TE-ETR within the ISP (along an
   intra-ISP traffic-engineered path) or a TE-ETR within another ISP (an
   inter-ISP traffic-engineered path, where an agreement to build such a
   path exists).

   In order to avoid excessive packet overhead as well as possible
   encapsulation loops, it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of two LISP
   headers can be prepended to a packet.  For initial LISP deployments,
   it is assumed that two headers is sufficient, where the first
   prepended header is used at a site for separation of location and
   identity and the second prepended header is used inside a service
   provider for Traffic Engineering purposes.

   Tunnel Routers can be placed fairly flexibly in a multi-AS topology.
   For example, the ITR for a particular end-to-end packet exchange
   might be the first-hop or default router within a site for the source
   host.  Similarly, the ETR might be the last-hop router directly
   connected to the destination host.  As another example, perhaps for a
   VPN service outsourced to an ISP by a site, the ITR could be the
   site's border router at the service provider attachment point.
   Mixing and matching of site-operated, ISP-operated, and other Tunnel
   Routers is allowed for maximum flexibility.

4.1.  Deployment on the Public Internet

   Several of the mechanisms in this document are intended for
   deployment in controlled, trusted environments and are insecure for
   use over the public Internet.  In particular, on the public Internet,
   xTRs:

   *  MUST set the N-, L-, E-, and V-bits in the LISP header
      (Section 5.1) to zero.

   *  MUST NOT use Locator-Status-Bits and Echo-Nonce, as described in
      Section 10, for RLOC reachability.  Instead, they MUST rely solely
      on control plane methods.

   *  MUST NOT use gleaning or Locator-Status-Bits and Map-Versioning,
      as described in Section 13, to update the EID-to-RLOC mappings.
      Instead, they MUST rely solely on control plane methods.

4.2.  Packet Flow Sequence

   This section provides an example of the unicast packet flow, also
   including control plane information as specified in [RFC9301].  The
   example also assumes the following conditions:

   *  Source host "host1.abc.example.com" is sending a packet to
      "host2.xyz.example.com", exactly as it would if the site was not
      using LISP.

   *  Each site is multihomed, so each Tunnel Router has an address
      (RLOC) assigned from the service provider address block for each
      provider to which that particular Tunnel Router is attached.

   *  The ITR(s) and ETR(s) are directly connected to the source and
      destination, respectively, but the source and destination can be
      located anywhere in the LISP site.

   *  A Map-Request is sent for an external destination when the
      destination is not found in the forwarding table or matches a
      default route.  Map-Requests are sent to the mapping database
      system by using the LISP control plane protocol documented in
      [RFC9301].

   *  Map-Replies are sent on the underlying routing system topology,
      using the control plane protocol [RFC9301].

   Client host1.abc.example.com wants to communicate with server
   host2.xyz.example.com:

   1.  host1.abc.example.com wants to open a TCP connection to
       host2.xyz.example.com.  It does a DNS lookup on
       host2.xyz.example.com.  An A/AAAA record is returned.  This
       address is the destination EID.  The locally assigned address of
       host1.abc.example.com is used as the source EID.  An IPv4 or IPv6
       packet is built and forwarded through the LISP site as a normal
       IP packet until it reaches a LISP ITR.

   2.  The LISP ITR must be able to map the destination EID to an RLOC
       of one of the ETRs at the destination site.  A method for doing
       this is to send a LISP Map-Request, as specified in [RFC9301].

   3.  The Mapping System helps forward the Map-Request to the
       corresponding ETR.  When the Map-Request arrives at one of the
       ETRs at the destination site, it will process the packet as a
       control message.

   4.  The ETR looks at the destination EID of the Map-Request and
       matches it against the prefixes in the ETR's configured EID-to-
       RLOC mapping database.  This is the list of EID-Prefixes the ETR
       is supporting for the site it resides in.  If there is no match,
       the Map-Request is dropped.  Otherwise, a LISP Map-Reply is
       returned to the ITR.

   5.  The ITR receives the Map-Reply message, parses the message, and
       stores the mapping information from the packet.  This information
       is stored in the ITR's EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache.  Note that the Map-
       Cache is an on-demand cache.  An ITR will manage its Map-Cache in
       such a way that optimizes for its resource constraints.

   6.  Subsequent packets from host1.abc.example.com to
       host2.xyz.example.com will have a LISP header prepended by the
       ITR using the appropriate RLOC as the LISP header destination
       address learned from the ETR.  Note that the packet MAY be sent
       to a different ETR than the one that returned the Map-Reply due
       to the source site's hashing policy or the destination site's
       Locator-Set policy.

   7.  The ETR receives these packets directly (since the destination
       address is one of its assigned IP addresses), checks the validity
       of the addresses, strips the LISP header, and forwards packets to
       the attached destination host.

   8.  In order to defer the need for a mapping lookup in the reverse
       direction, it is OPTIONAL for an ETR to create a cache entry that
       maps the source EID (inner-header source IP address) to the
       source RLOC (outer-header source IP address) in a received LISP
       packet.  Such a cache entry is termed a "glean mapping" and only
       contains a single RLOC for the EID in question.  More complete
       information about additional RLOCs SHOULD be verified by sending
       a LISP Map-Request for that EID.  Both the ITR and the ETR MAY
       also influence the decision the other makes in selecting an RLOC.

5.  LISP Encapsulation Details

   Since additional tunnel headers are prepended, the packet becomes
   larger and can exceed the MTU of any link traversed from the ITR to
   the ETR.  It is RECOMMENDED in IPv4 that packets do not get
   fragmented as they are encapsulated by the ITR.  Instead, the packet
   is dropped and an ICMPv4 Unreachable / Fragmentation Needed message
   is returned to the source.

   In the case when fragmentation is needed, it is RECOMMENDED that
   implementations provide support for one of the proposed fragmentation
   and reassembly schemes.  Two existing schemes are detailed in
   Section 7.

   Since IPv4 or IPv6 addresses can be either EIDs or RLOCs, the LISP
   architecture supports IPv4 EIDs with IPv6 RLOCs (where the inner
   header is in IPv4 packet format and the outer header is in IPv6
   packet format) or IPv6 EIDs with IPv4 RLOCs (where the inner header
   is in IPv6 packet format and the outer header is in IPv4 packet
   format).  The next sub-sections illustrate packet formats for the
   homogeneous case (IPv4-in-IPv4 and IPv6-in-IPv6), but all 4
   combinations MUST be supported.  Additional types of EIDs are defined
   in [RFC8060].

   As LISP uses UDP encapsulation to carry traffic between xTRs across
   the Internet, implementors should be aware of the provisions of
   [RFC8085], especially those given in its Section 3.1.11 on congestion
   control for UDP tunneling.

   Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines
   in Section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when it is desirable to protect UDP and
   LISP headers against corruption.

5.1.  LISP IPv4-in-IPv4 Header Format

        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|  IHL  |    DSCP   |ECN|          Total Length         |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   OH  |  Time to Live | Protocol = 17 |         Header Checksum       |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                    Source Routing Locator                     |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                 Destination Routing Locator                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = 4341        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   L   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|  IHL  |    DSCP   |ECN|          Total Length         |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Identification        |Flags|      Fragment Offset    |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   IH  |  Time to Live |    Protocol   |         Header Checksum       |
   |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |                           Source EID                          |
    \  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |                         Destination EID                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       IHL = IP-Header-Length

5.2.  LISP IPv6-in-IPv6 Header Format

        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|    DSCP   |ECN|           Flow Label                  |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   |         Payload Length        | Next Header=17|   Hop Limit   |
   v   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
   O   +                                                               +
   u   |                                                               |
   t   +                     Source Routing Locator                    +
   e   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   H   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   d   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   ^   +                  Destination Routing Locator                  +
   |   |                                                               |
    \  +                                                               +
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |       Source Port = xxxx      |       Dest Port = 4341        |
   UDP +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     \ |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   L   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   I \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   S / |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   P   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     / |Version|    DSCP   |ECN|           Flow Label                  |
    /  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /   |         Payload Length        |  Next Header  |   Hop Limit   |
   v   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
   I   +                                                               +
   n   |                                                               |
   n   +                          Source EID                           +
   e   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   H   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   d   |                                                               |
   r   +                                                               +
       |                                                               |
   ^   +                        Destination EID                        +
   \   |                                                               |
    \  +                                                               +
     \ |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5.3.  Tunnel Header Field Descriptions

   Inner Header (IH):  The inner header is the header on the datagram
      received from the originating host [RFC0791] [RFC8200] [RFC2474].
      The source and destination IP addresses are EIDs.

   Outer Header (OH):  The outer header is a new header prepended by an
      ITR.  The address fields contain RLOCs obtained from the ingress
      router's EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache.  The IP protocol number is "UDP
      (17)" from [RFC0768].  The setting of the Don't Fragment (DF) bit
      'Flags' field is according to rules listed in Sections 7.1 and
      7.2.

   UDP Header:  The UDP header contains an ITR-selected source port when
      encapsulating a packet.  See Section 12 for details on the hash
      algorithm used to select a source port based on the 5-tuple of the
      inner header.  The destination port MUST be set to the well-known
      IANA-assigned port value 4341.

   UDP Checksum:  The 'UDP Checksum' field SHOULD be transmitted as zero
      by an ITR for either IPv4 [RFC0768] or IPv6 encapsulation
      [RFC6935] [RFC6936].  When a packet with a zero UDP checksum is
      received by an ETR, the ETR MUST accept the packet for
      decapsulation.  When an ITR transmits a non-zero value for the UDP
      checksum, it MUST send a correctly computed value in this field.
      When an ETR receives a packet with a non-zero UDP checksum, it MAY
      choose to verify the checksum value.  If it chooses to perform
      such verification and the verification fails, the packet MUST be
      silently dropped.  If the ETR either chooses not to perform the
      verification or performs the verification successfully, the packet
      MUST be accepted for decapsulation.  The handling of UDP zero
      checksums over IPv6 for all tunneling protocols, including LISP,
      is subject to the applicability statement in [RFC6936].

   UDP Length:  The 'UDP Length' field is set for an IPv4-encapsulated
      packet to be the sum of the inner-header IPv4 Total Length plus
      the UDP and LISP header lengths.  For an IPv6-encapsulated packet,
      the 'UDP Length' field is the sum of the inner-header IPv6 Payload
      Length, the size of the IPv6 header (40 octets), and the size of
      the UDP and LISP headers.

   N:  The N-bit is the nonce-present bit.  When this bit is set to 1,
      the low-order 24 bits of the first 32 bits of the LISP header
      contain a nonce.  See Section 10.1 for details.  Both N- and
      V-bits MUST NOT be set in the same packet.  If they are, a
      decapsulating ETR MUST treat the 'Nonce/Map-Version' field as
      having a nonce value present.

   L:  The L-bit is the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field enabled bit.  When
      this bit is set to 1, the Locator-Status-Bits in the second
      32 bits of the LISP header are in use.

    x 1 x x 0 x x x
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Locator-Status-Bits                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   E:  The E-bit is the Echo-Nonce-request bit.  This bit MUST be
      ignored and has no meaning when the N-bit is set to 0.  When the
      N-bit is set to 1 and this bit is set to 1, an ITR is requesting
      that the nonce value in the 'Nonce' field be echoed back in LISP-
      encapsulated packets when the ITR is also an ETR.  See
      Section 10.1 for details.

   V:  The V-bit is the Map-Version present bit.  When this bit is set
      to 1, the N-bit MUST be 0.  Refer to [RFC9302] for more details on
      Database Map-Versioning.  This bit indicates that the LISP header
      is encoded in this case as:

    0 x 0 1 x x x x
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|  Source Map-Version   |   Dest Map-Version    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Instance ID/Locator-Status-Bits               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   I:  The I-bit is the Instance ID bit.  See Section 8 for more
      details.  When this bit is set to 1, the 'Locator-Status-Bits'
      field is reduced to 8 bits and the high-order 24 bits are used as
      an Instance ID.  If the L-bit is set to 0, then the low-order
      8 bits are transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt.  The format
      of the LISP header would look like this:

    x x x x 1 x x x
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |N|L|E|V|I|R|K|K|            Nonce/Map-Version                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Instance ID                   |     LSBs      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   R:  The R-bit is a reserved and unassigned bit for future use.  It
      MUST be set to 0 on transmit and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   KK:  The KK-bits are a 2-bit field used when encapsulated packets are
      encrypted.  The field is set to 00 when the packet is not
      encrypted.  See [RFC8061] for further information.

   LISP Nonce:  The LISP 'Nonce' field is a 24-bit value that is
      randomly generated by an ITR when the N-bit is set to 1.  Nonce
      generation algorithms are an implementation matter but are
      required to generate different nonces when sending to different
      RLOCs.  The nonce is also used when the E-bit is set to request
      the nonce value to be echoed by the other side when packets are
      returned.  When the E-bit is clear but the N-bit is set, a remote
      ITR is either echoing a previously requested Echo-Nonce or
      providing a random nonce.  See Section 10.1 for more details.
      Finally, when both the N- and V-bits are not set (N=0, V=0), then
      both the 'Nonce' and 'Map-Version' fields are set to 0 and ignored
      on receipt.

   LISP Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs):  When the L-bit is also set, the
      'Locator-Status-Bits' field in the LISP header is set by an ITR to
      indicate to an ETR the up/down status of the Locators in the
      source site.  Each RLOC in a Map-Reply is assigned an ordinal
      value from 0 to n-1 (when there are n RLOCs in a mapping entry).
      The Locator-Status-Bits are numbered from 0 to n-1 from the least
      significant bit of the field.  The field is 32 bits when the I-bit
      is set to 0 and is 8 bits when the I-bit is set to 1.  When a
      Locator-Status-Bit is set to 1, the ITR is indicating to the ETR
      that the RLOC associated with the bit ordinal has up status.  See
      Section 10 for details on how an ITR can determine the status of
      the ETRs at the same site.  When a site has multiple EID-Prefixes
      that result in multiple mappings (where each could have a
      different Locator-Set), the Locator-Status-Bits setting in an
      encapsulated packet MUST reflect the mapping for the EID-Prefix
      that the inner-header source EID address matches (longest-match).
      If the LSB for an anycast Locator is set to 1, then there is at
      least one RLOC with that address, and the ETR is considered 'up'.

   When doing ITR/PITR encapsulation:

   *  The outer-header 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field, in
      the case of IPv6) SHOULD be copied from the inner-header 'Time to
      Live' field.

   *  The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)'
      field (or 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
      copied from the inner-header IPv4 'DSCP' field (or 'Traffic Class'
      field, in the case of IPv6) to the outer header.  Guidelines for
      this can be found in [RFC2983].

   *  The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)' field and bits 6
      and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field require special treatment
      in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
      specified in [RFC6040].

   When doing ETR/PETR decapsulation:

   *  The inner-header IPv4 'Time to Live' field (or 'Hop Limit' field,
      in the case of IPv6) MUST be copied from the outer-header 'Time to
      Live'/'Hop Limit' field when the Time to Live / Hop Limit value of
      the outer header is less than the Time to Live / Hop Limit value
      of the inner header.  Failing to perform this check can cause the
      Time to Live / Hop Limit of the inner header to increment across
      encapsulation/decapsulation cycles.  This check is also performed
      when doing initial encapsulation, when a packet comes to an ITR or
      PITR destined for a LISP site.

   *  The outer-header IPv4 'Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)'
      field (or 'Traffic Class' field, in the case of IPv6) SHOULD be
      copied from the outer-header 'IPv4 DSCP' field (or 'Traffic Class'
      field, in the case of IPv6) to the inner header.  Guidelines for
      this can be found in [RFC2983].

   *  The IPv4 'Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)' field and bits 6
      and 7 of the IPv6 'Traffic Class' field require special treatment
      in order to avoid discarding indications of congestion as
      specified in [RFC6040].  Note that implementations exist that copy
      the 'ECN' field from the outer header to the inner header, even
      though [RFC6040] does not recommend this behavior.  It is
      RECOMMENDED that implementations change to support the behavior
      discussed in [RFC6040].

   Note that if an ETR/PETR is also an ITR/PITR and chooses to re-
   encapsulate after decapsulating, the net effect of this is that the
   new outer header will carry the same Time to Live as the old outer
   header minus 1.

   Copying the Time to Live serves two purposes: first, it preserves the
   distance the host intended the packet to travel; second, and more
   importantly, it provides for suppression of looping packets in the
   event there is a loop of concatenated tunnels due to
   misconfiguration.

   Some xTRs, PETRs, and PITRs perform re-encapsulation operations and
   need to treat ECN functions in a special way.  Because the re-
   encapsulation operation is a sequence of two operations, namely a
   decapsulation followed by an encapsulation, the ECN bits MUST be
   treated as described above for these two operations.

   The LISP data plane protocol is not backwards compatible with
   [RFC6830] and does not have explicit support for introducing future
   protocol changes (e.g., an explicit version field).  However, the
   LISP control plane [RFC9301] allows an ETR to register data plane
   capabilities by means of new LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
   types [RFC8060].  In this way, an ITR can be made aware of the data
   plane capabilities of an ETR and encapsulate accordingly.  The
   specification of the new LCAF types, the new LCAF mechanisms, and
   their use are out of the scope of this document.

6.  LISP EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache

   ITRs and PITRs maintain an on-demand cache, referred to as the LISP
   EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache, that contains mappings from EID-Prefixes to
   Locator-Sets.  The cache is used to encapsulate packets from the EID
   space to the corresponding RLOC network attachment point.

   When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside of the LISP site to
   destinations outside of the site, a longest-prefix match lookup of
   the EID is done to the Map-Cache.

   When the lookup succeeds, the Locator-Set retrieved from the Map-
   Cache is used to send the packet to the EID's topological location.

   If the lookup fails, the ITR/PITR needs to retrieve the mapping using
   the LISP control plane protocol [RFC9301].  While the mapping is
   being retrieved, the ITR/PITR can either drop or buffer the packets.
   This document does not have specific recommendations about the action
   to be taken.  It is up to the deployer to consider whether or not it
   is desirable to buffer packets and deploy a LISP implementation that
   offers the desired behavior.  Once the mapping is resolved, it is
   then stored in the local Map-Cache to forward subsequent packets
   addressed to the same EID-Prefix.

   The Map-Cache is a local cache of mappings; entries are expired based
   on the associated Time to Live.  In addition, entries can be updated
   with more current information; see Section 13 for further information
   on this.  Finally, the Map-Cache also contains reachability
   information about EIDs and RLOCs and uses LISP reachability
   information mechanisms to determine the reachability of RLOCs; see
   Section 10 for the specific mechanisms.

7.  Dealing with Large Encapsulated Packets

   This section proposes two mechanisms to deal with packets that exceed
   the Path MTU (PMTU) between the ITR and ETR.

   It is left to the implementor to decide if the stateless or stateful
   mechanism SHOULD be implemented.  Both or neither can be used, since
   it is a local decision in the ITR regarding how to deal with MTU
   issues, and sites can interoperate with differing mechanisms.

   Both stateless and stateful mechanisms also apply to Re-encapsulating
   and Recursive Tunneling, so any actions below referring to an ITR
   also apply to a TE-ITR.

7.1.  A Stateless Solution to MTU Handling

   An ITR stateless solution to handle MTU issues is described as
   follows:

   1.  Define H to be the size, in octets, of the outer header an ITR
       prepends to a packet.  This includes the UDP and LISP header
       lengths.

   2.  Define L to be the size, in octets, of the maximum-sized packet
       an ITR can send to an ETR without the need for the ITR or any
       intermediate routers to fragment the packet.  The network
       administrator of the LISP deployment has to determine what the
       suitable value of L is, so as to make sure that no MTU issues
       arise.

   3.  Define an architectural constant S for the maximum size of a
       packet, in octets, an ITR MUST receive from the source so the
       effective MTU can be met.  That is, L = S + H.

   When an ITR receives a packet from a site-facing interface and adds H
   octets worth of encapsulation to yield a packet size greater than L
   octets (meaning the received packet size was greater than S octets
   from the source), it resolves the MTU issue by first splitting the
   original packet into 2 equal-sized fragments.  A LISP header is then
   prepended to each fragment.  The size of the encapsulated fragments
   is then (S/2 + H), which is less than the ITR's estimate of the PMTU
   between the ITR and its correspondent ETR.

   When an ETR receives encapsulated fragments, it treats them as two
   individually encapsulated packets.  It strips the LISP headers and
   then forwards each fragment to the destination host of the
   destination site.  The two fragments are reassembled at the
   destination host into the single IP datagram that was originated by
   the source host.  Note that reassembly can happen at the ETR if the
   encapsulated packet was fragmented at or after the ITR.

   This behavior MUST be implemented by the ITR only when the source
   host originates a packet with the 'DF' field of the IP header set to
   0.  When the 'DF' field of the IP header is set to 1 or the packet is
   an IPv6 packet originated by the source host, the ITR will drop the
   packet when the size (adding in the size of the encapsulation header)
   is greater than L and send an ICMPv4 Unreachable / Fragmentation
   Needed or ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) message to the source with a
   value of S, where S is (L - H).

   When the outer-header encapsulation uses an IPv4 header, an
   implementation SHOULD set the DF bit to 1 so ETR fragment reassembly
   can be avoided.  An implementation MAY set the DF bit in such headers
   to 0 if it has good reason to believe there are unresolvable PMTU
   issues between the sending ITR and the receiving ETR.

   It is RECOMMENDED that L be defined as 1500.  Additional information
   about in-network MTU and fragmentation issues can be found in
   [RFC4459].

7.2.  A Stateful Solution to MTU Handling

   An ITR stateful solution to handle MTU issues is described as
   follows:

   1.  The ITR will keep state of the effective MTU for each Locator per
       Map-Cache entry.  The effective MTU is what the core network can
       deliver along the path between the ITR and ETR.

   2.  When an IPv4-encapsulated packet with the DF bit set to 1 exceeds
       what the core network can deliver, one of the intermediate
       routers on the path will send an ICMPv4 Unreachable /
       Fragmentation Needed message to the ITR.  The ITR will parse the
       ICMP message to determine which Locator is affected by the
       effective MTU change and then record the new effective MTU value
       in the Map-Cache entry.

   3.  When a packet is received by the ITR from a source inside of the
       site and the size of the packet is greater than the effective MTU
       stored with the Map-Cache entry associated with the destination
       EID the packet is for, the ITR will send an ICMPv4 Unreachable /
       Fragmentation Needed message back to the source.  The packet size
       advertised by the ITR in the ICMP message is the effective MTU
       minus the LISP encapsulation length.

   Even though this mechanism is stateful, it has advantages over the
   stateless IP fragmentation mechanism, by not involving the
   destination host with reassembly of ITR fragmented packets.

   Please note that using ICMP packets for PMTU discovery, as described
   in [RFC1191] and [RFC8201], can result in suboptimal behavior in the
   presence of ICMP packet losses or off-path attackers that spoof ICMP.
   Possible mitigations include ITRs and ETRs cooperating on MTU probe
   packets [RFC4821] [RFC8899] or ITRs storing the beginning of large
   packets to verify that they match the echoed packet in an ICMP
   Fragmentation Needed / PTB message.

8.  Using Virtualization and Segmentation with LISP

   There are several cases where segregation is needed at the EID level.
   For instance, this is the case for deployments containing overlapping
   addresses, traffic isolation policies, or multi-tenant
   virtualization.  For these and other scenarios where segregation is
   needed, Instance IDs are used.

   An Instance ID can be carried in a LISP-encapsulated packet.  An ITR
   that prepends a LISP header will copy a 24-bit value used by the LISP
   router to uniquely identify the address space.  The value is copied
   to the 'Instance ID' field of the LISP header, and the I-bit is set
   to 1.

   When an ETR decapsulates a packet, the Instance ID from the LISP
   header is used as a table identifier to locate the forwarding table
   to use for the inner destination EID lookup.

   For example, an 802.1Q VLAN tag or VPN identifier could be used as a
   24-bit Instance ID.  See [LISP-VPN] for details regarding LISP VPN
   use cases.  Please note that the Instance ID is not protected; an on-
   path attacker can modify the tags and, for instance, allow
   communications between logically isolated VLANs.

   Participants within a LISP deployment must agree on the meaning of
   Instance ID values.  The source and destination EIDs MUST belong to
   the same Instance ID.

   The Instance ID SHOULD NOT be used with overlapping IPv6 EID
   addresses.

9.  Routing Locator Selection

   The Map-Cache contains the state used by ITRs and PITRs to
   encapsulate packets.  When an ITR/PITR receives a packet from inside
   the LISP site to a destination outside of the site, a longest-prefix
   match lookup of the EID is done to the Map-Cache (see Section 6).
   The lookup returns a single Locator-Set containing a list of RLOCs
   corresponding to the EID's topological location.  Each RLOC in the
   Locator-Set is associated with a Priority and Weight; this
   information is used to select the RLOC to encapsulate.

   The RLOC with the lowest Priority is selected.  An RLOC with Priority
   255 means that it MUST NOT be used for forwarding.  When multiple
   RLOCs have the same Priority, then the Weight states how to load-
   balance traffic among them.  The value of the Weight represents the
   relative weight of the total packets that match the mapping entry.

   The following are different scenarios for choosing RLOCs and the
   controls that are available:

   *  The server-side returns one RLOC.  The client-side can only use
      one RLOC.  The server-side has complete control of the selection.

   *  The server-side returns a list of RLOCs where a subset of the list
      has the same best Priority.  The client can only use the subset
      list according to the weighting assigned by the server-side.  In
      this case, the server-side controls both the subset list and load
      splitting across its members.  The client-side can use RLOCs
      outside of the subset list if it determines that the subset list
      is unreachable (unless RLOCs are set to a Priority of 255).  Some
      sharing of control exists: the server-side determines the
      destination RLOC list and load distribution while the client-side
      has the option of using alternatives to this list if RLOCs in the
      list are unreachable.

   *  The server-side sets a Weight of zero for the RLOC subset list.
      In this case, the client-side can choose how the traffic load is
      spread across the subset list.  See Section 12 for details on
      load-sharing mechanisms.  Control is shared by the server-side
      determining the list and the client-side determining load
      distribution.  Again, the client can use alternative RLOCs if the
      server-provided list of RLOCs is unreachable.

   *  Either side (more likely the server-side ETR) decides to "glean"
      the RLOCs.  For example, if the server-side ETR gleans RLOCs, then
      the client-side ITR gives the server-side ETR responsibility for
      bidirectional RLOC reachability and preferability.  Server-side
      ETR gleaning of the client-side ITR RLOC is done by caching the
      inner-header source EID and the outer-header source RLOC of
      received packets.  The client-side ITR controls how traffic is
      returned and can, as an alternative, use an outer-header source
      RLOC, which then can be added to the list the server-side ETR uses
      to return traffic.  Since no Priority or Weights are provided
      using this method, the server-side ETR MUST assume that each
      client-side ITR RLOC uses the same best Priority with a Weight of
      zero.  In addition, since EID-Prefix encoding cannot be conveyed
      in data packets, the EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache on Tunnel Routers can
      grow very large.  Gleaning has several important considerations.
      A "gleaned" Map-Cache entry is only stored and used for a
      RECOMMENDED period of 3 seconds, pending verification.
      Verification MUST be performed by sending a Map-Request to the
      source EID (the inner-header IP source address) of the received
      encapsulated packet.  A reply to this "verifying Map-Request" is
      used to fully populate the Map-Cache entry for the "gleaned" EID
      and is stored and used for the time indicated in the 'Time to
      Live' field of a received Map-Reply.  When a verified Map-Cache
      entry is stored, data gleaning no longer occurs for subsequent
      packets that have a source EID that matches the EID-Prefix of the
      verified entry.  This "gleaning" mechanism MUST NOT be used over
      the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed
      deployments.  Refer to Section 16 for security issues regarding
      this mechanism.

   RLOCs that appear in EID-to-RLOC Map-Reply messages are assumed to be
   reachable when the R-bit [RFC9301] for the Locator record is set to
   1.  When the R-bit is set to 0, an ITR or PITR MUST NOT encapsulate
   to the RLOC.  Neither the information contained in a Map-Reply nor
   that stored in the mapping database system provides reachability
   information for RLOCs.  Note that reachability is not part of the
   Mapping System and is determined using one or more of the RLOC
   reachability algorithms described in the next section.

10.  Routing Locator Reachability

   Several data plane mechanisms for determining RLOC reachability are
   currently defined.  Please note that additional reachability
   mechanisms based on the control plane are defined in [RFC9301].

   1.  An ETR MAY examine the Locator-Status-Bits in the LISP header of
       an encapsulated data packet received from an ITR.  If the ETR is
       also acting as an ITR and has traffic to return to the original
       ITR site, it can use this status information to help select an
       RLOC.

   2.  When an ETR receives an encapsulated packet from an ITR, the
       source RLOC from the outer header of the packet is likely to be
       reachable.  Please note that in some scenarios the RLOC from the
       outer header can be a spoofable field.

   3.  An ITR/ETR pair can use the Echo-Noncing Locator reachability
       algorithms described in this section.

   When determining Locator up/down reachability by examining the
   Locator-Status-Bits from the LISP-encapsulated data packet, an ETR
   will receive an up-to-date status from an encapsulating ITR about
   reachability for all ETRs at the site.  CE-based ITRs at the source
   site can determine reachability relative to each other using the site
   IGP as follows:

   *  Under normal circumstances, each ITR will advertise a default
      route into the site IGP.

   *  If an ITR fails or if the upstream link to its Provider Edge
      fails, its default route will either time out or be withdrawn.

   Each ITR can thus observe the presence or lack of a default route
   originated by the others to determine the Locator-Status-Bits it sets
   for them.

   When ITRs at the site are not deployed in CE routers, the IGP can
   still be used to determine the reachability of Locators, provided
   they are injected into the IGP.  This is typically done when a /32
   address is configured on a loopback interface.

   RLOCs listed in a Map-Reply are numbered with ordinals 0 to n-1.  The
   Locator-Status-Bits in a LISP-encapsulated packet are numbered from 0
   to n-1 starting with the least significant bit.  For example, if an
   RLOC listed in the 3rd position of the Map-Reply goes down (ordinal
   value 2), then all ITRs at the site will clear the 3rd least
   significant bit (xxxx x0xx) of the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field for
   the packets they encapsulate.

   When an xTR decides to use Locator-Status-Bits to affect reachability
   information, it acts as follows: ETRs decapsulating a packet will
   check for any change in the 'Locator-Status-Bits' field.  When a bit
   goes from 1 to 0, the ETR, if also acting as an ITR, will refrain
   from encapsulating packets to an RLOC that is indicated as down.  It
   will only resume using that RLOC if the corresponding Locator-Status-
   Bit returns to a value of 1.  Locator-Status-Bits are associated with
   a Locator-Set per EID-Prefix.  Therefore, when a Locator becomes
   unreachable, the Locator-Status-Bit that corresponds to that
   Locator's position in the list returned by the last Map-Reply will be
   set to zero for that particular EID-Prefix.

   Locator-Status-Bits MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and
   SHOULD only be used in trusted and closed deployments.  In addition,
   Locator-Status-Bits SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning [RFC9302]
   to prevent race conditions where Locator-Status-Bits are interpreted
   as referring to different RLOCs than intended.  Refer to Section 16
   for security issues regarding this mechanism.

   If an ITR encapsulates a packet to an ETR and the packet is received
   and decapsulated by the ETR, it is implied, but not confirmed by the
   ITR, that the ETR's RLOC is reachable.  In most cases, the ETR can
   also reach the ITR but cannot assume this to be true, due to the
   possibility of path asymmetry.  In the presence of unidirectional
   traffic flow from an ITR to an ETR, the ITR SHOULD NOT use the lack
   of return traffic as an indication that the ETR is unreachable.
   Instead, it MUST use an alternate mechanism to determine
   reachability.

   The security considerations of Section 16 related to data plane
   reachability apply to the data plane RLOC reachability mechanisms
   described in this section.

10.1.  Echo-Nonce Algorithm

   When data flows bidirectionally between Locators from different
   sites, a data plane mechanism called "nonce echoing" can be used to
   determine reachability between an ITR and ETR.  When an ITR wants to
   solicit a nonce echo, it sets the N- and E-bits and places a 24-bit
   nonce [RFC4086] in the LISP header of the next encapsulated data
   packet.

   When this packet is received by the ETR, the encapsulated packet is
   forwarded as normal.  When the ETR is an xTR (co-located as an ITR),
   it then sends a data packet to the ITR (when it is an xTR co-located
   as an ETR) and includes the nonce received earlier with the N-bit set
   and E-bit cleared.  The ITR sees this "echoed nonce" and knows that
   the path to and from the ETR is up.

   The ITR will set the E-bit and N-bit for every packet it sends while
   in the Echo-Nonce-request state.  The time the ITR waits to process
   the echoed nonce before it determines that the path is unreachable is
   variable and is a choice left for the implementation.

   If the ITR is receiving packets from the ETR but does not see the
   nonce echoed while being in the Echo-Nonce-request state, then the
   path to the ETR is unreachable.  This decision MAY be overridden by
   other Locator reachability algorithms.  Once the ITR determines that
   the path to the ETR is down, it can switch to another Locator for
   that EID-Prefix.

   Note that "ITR" and "ETR" are relative terms here.  Both devices MUST
   be implementing both ITR and ETR functionality for the Echo-Nonce
   mechanism to operate.

   The ITR and ETR MAY both go into the Echo-Nonce-request state at the
   same time.  The number of packets sent or the time during which Echo-
   Nonce request packets are sent is an implementation-specific setting.
   In this case, an xTR receiving the Echo-Nonce request packets will
   suspend the Echo-Nonce state and set up an 'Echo-Nonce-request-state'
   timer.  After the 'Echo-Nonce-request-state' timer expires, it will
   resume the Echo-Nonce state.

   This mechanism does not completely solve the forward path
   reachability problem, as traffic may be unidirectional.  That is, the
   ETR receiving traffic at a site MAY not be the same device as an ITR
   that transmits traffic from that site, or the site-to-site traffic is
   unidirectional so there is no ITR returning traffic.

   The Echo-Nonce algorithm is bilateral.  That is, if one side sets the
   E-bit and the other side is not enabled for Echo-Noncing, then the
   echoing of the nonce does not occur and the requesting side may
   erroneously consider the Locator unreachable.  An ITR SHOULD set the
   E-bit in an encapsulated data packet when it knows the ETR is enabled
   for Echo-Noncing.  This is conveyed by the E-bit in the Map-Reply
   message.

   Many implementations default to not advertising that they are Echo-
   Nonce capable in Map-Reply messages, and so RLOC-Probing tends to be
   used for RLOC reachability.

   The Echo-Nonce mechanism MUST NOT be used over the public Internet
   and MUST only be used in trusted and closed deployments.  Refer to
   Section 16 for security issues regarding this mechanism.

11.  EID Reachability within a LISP Site

   A site MAY be multihomed using two or more ETRs.  The hosts and
   infrastructure within a site will be addressed using one or more EID-
   Prefixes that are mapped to the RLOCs of the relevant ETRs in the
   Mapping System.  One possible failure mode is for an ETR to lose
   reachability to one or more of the EID-Prefixes within its own site.
   When this occurs when the ETR sends Map-Replies, it can clear the
   R-bit associated with its own Locator.  And when the ETR is also an
   ITR, it can clear its Locator-Status-Bit in the encapsulation data
   header.

   It is recognized that there are no simple solutions to the site
   partitioning problem because it is hard to know which part of the
   EID-Prefix range is partitioned and which Locators can reach any sub-
   ranges of the EID-Prefixes.  Note that this is not a new problem
   introduced by the LISP architecture.  At the time of this writing,
   this problem exists when a multihomed site uses BGP to advertise its
   reachability upstream.

12.  Routing Locator Hashing

   When an ETR provides an EID-to-RLOC mapping in a Map-Reply message
   that is stored in the Map-Cache of a requesting ITR, the Locator-Set
   for the EID-Prefix MAY contain different Priority and Weight values
   for each Routing Locator Address.  When more than one best Priority
   Locator exists, the ITR can decide how to load-share traffic against
   the corresponding Locators.

   The following hash algorithm MAY be used by an ITR to select a
   Locator for a packet destined to an EID for the EID-to-RLOC mapping:

   1.  Either a source and destination address hash or the commonly used
       5-tuple hash can be used.  The commonly used 5-tuple hash
       includes the source and destination addresses; source and
       destination TCP, UDP, or Stream Control Transmission Protocol
       (SCTP) port numbers; and the IP protocol number field or IPv6
       next-protocol fields of a packet that a host originates from
       within a LISP site.  When a packet is not a TCP, UDP, or SCTP
       packet, the source and destination addresses only from the header
       are used to compute the hash.

   2.  Take the hash value and divide it by the number of Locators
       stored in the Locator-Set for the EID-to-RLOC mapping.

   3.  The remainder will yield a value of 0 to "number of Locators
       minus 1".  Use the remainder to select the Locator in the
       Locator-Set.

   The specific hash algorithm the ITR uses for load-sharing is out of
   scope for this document and does not prevent interoperability.

   The source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the
   same flow.  Also note that when a packet is LISP encapsulated, the
   source port number in the outer UDP header needs to be set.
   Selecting a hashed value allows core routers that are attached to
   Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) to load-split the encapsulated packets
   across member links of such LAGs.  Otherwise, core routers would see
   a single flow, since packets have a source address of the ITR, for
   packets that are originated by different EIDs at the source site.  A
   suggested setting for the source port number computed by an ITR is a
   5-tuple hash function on the inner header, as described above.  The
   source port SHOULD be the same for all packets belonging to the same
   flow.

   Many core router implementations use a 5-tuple hash to decide how to
   balance packet load across members of a LAG.  The 5-tuple hash
   includes the source and destination addresses of the packet and the
   source and destination ports when the protocol number in the packet
   is TCP or UDP.  For this reason, UDP encoding is used for LISP
   encapsulation.  In this scenario, when the outer header is IPv6, the
   flow label MAY also be set following the procedures specified in
   [RFC6438].  When the inner header is IPv6 and the flow label is not
   zero, it MAY be used to compute the hash.

13.  Changing the Contents of EID-to-RLOC Mappings

   Since the LISP architecture uses a caching scheme to retrieve and
   store EID-to-RLOC mappings, the only way an ITR can get a more up-to-
   date mapping is to re-request the mapping.  However, the ITRs do not
   know when the mappings change, and the ETRs do not keep track of
   which ITRs requested their mappings.  For scalability reasons, it is
   desirable to maintain this approach, but implementors need to provide
   a way for ETRs to change their mappings and inform the sites that are
   currently communicating with the ETR site using such mappings.

   This section defines two data plane mechanism for updating EID-to-
   RLOC mappings.  Additionally, the Solicit-Map-Request (SMR) control
   plane updating mechanism is specified in [RFC9301].

13.1.  Locator-Status-Bits

   Locator-Status-Bits (LSBs) can also be used to keep track of the
   Locator status (up or down) when EID-to-RLOC mappings are changing.
   When LSBs are used in a LISP deployment, all LISP Tunnel Routers MUST
   implement both ITR and ETR capabilities (therefore, all Tunnel
   Routers are effectively xTRs).  In this section, the term "source
   xTR" is used to refer to the xTR setting the LSB and "destination
   xTR" is used to refer to the xTR receiving the LSB.  The procedure is
   as follows:

   1.  When a Locator record is added or removed from the Locator-Set,
       the source xTR will signal this by sending an SMR control plane
       message [RFC9301] to the destination xTR.  At this point, the
       source xTR MUST NOT use the LSB field, when the L-bit is 0, since
       the destination xTR site has outdated information.  The source
       xTR will set up a 'use-LSB' timer.

   2.  As defined in [RFC9301], upon reception of the SMR message, the
       destination xTR will retrieve the updated EID-to-RLOC mappings by
       sending a Map-Request.

   3.  When the 'use-LSB' timer expires, the source xTR can use the LSB
       again with the destination xTR to signal the Locator status (up
       or down).  The specific value for the 'use-LSB' timer depends on
       the LISP deployment; the 'use-LSB' timer needs to be large enough
       for the destination xTR to retrieve the updated EID-to-RLOC
       mappings.  A RECOMMENDED value for the 'use-LSB' timer is 5
       minutes.

13.2.  Database Map-Versioning

   When there is unidirectional packet flow between an ITR and ETR, and
   the EID-to-RLOC mappings change on the ETR, it needs to inform the
   ITR so encapsulation to a removed Locator can stop and can instead be
   started to a new Locator in the Locator-Set.

   An ETR can send Map-Reply messages carrying a Map-Version Number
   [RFC9302] in an EID-Record.  This is known as the Destination Map-
   Version Number.  ITRs include the Destination Map-Version Number in
   packets they encapsulate to the site.

   An ITR, when it encapsulates packets to ETRs, can convey its own Map-
   Version Number.  This is known as the Source Map-Version Number.

   When presented in EID-Records of Map-Register messages [RFC9301], a
   Map-Version Number is a good way for the Map-Server [RFC9301] to
   assure that all ETRs for a site registering to it are synchronized
   according to the Map-Version Number.

   See [RFC9302] for a more detailed analysis and description of
   Database Map-Versioning.

14.  Multicast Considerations

   A multicast group address, as defined in the original Internet
   architecture, is an identifier of a grouping of topologically
   independent receiver host locations.  The address encoding itself
   does not determine the location of the receiver(s).  The multicast
   routing protocol and the network-based state the protocol creates
   determine where the receivers are located.

   In the context of LISP, a multicast group address is both an EID and
   an RLOC.  Therefore, no specific semantic or action needs to be taken
   for a destination address, as it would appear in an IP header.
   Therefore, a group address that appears in an inner IP header built
   by a source host will be used as the destination EID.  The outer IP
   header (the destination RLOC address), prepended by a LISP router,
   can use the same group address as the destination RLOC, use a
   multicast or unicast RLOC obtained from a Mapping System lookup, or
   use other means to determine the group address mapping.

   With respect to the source RLOC address, the ITR prepends its own IP
   address as the source address of the outer IP header, just like it
   would if the destination EID was a unicast address.  This source RLOC
   address, like any other RLOC address, MUST be routable on the
   underlay.

   There are two approaches for LISP-Multicast [RFC6831]: one that uses
   native multicast routing in the underlay with no support from the
   Mapping System and another that uses only unicast routing in the
   underlay with support from the Mapping System.  See [RFC6831] and
   [RFC8378], respectively, for details.  Details for LISP-Multicast and
   interworking with non-LISP sites are described in [RFC6831] and
   [RFC6832], respectively.

15.  Router Performance Considerations

   LISP is designed to be very "hardware based and forwarding friendly".
   A few implementation techniques can be used to incrementally
   implement LISP:

   *  When a tunnel-encapsulated packet is received by an ETR, the outer
      destination address may not be the address of the router.  This
      makes it challenging for the control plane to get packets from the
      hardware.  This may be mitigated by creating special Forwarding
      Information Base (FIB) entries for the EID-Prefixes of EIDs served
      by the ETR (those for which the router provides an RLOC
      translation).  These FIB entries are marked with a flag indicating
      that control plane processing SHOULD be performed.  The forwarding
      logic of testing for particular IP protocol number values is not
      necessary.  There are a few proven cases where no changes to
      existing deployed hardware were needed to support the LISP data
      plane.

   *  On an ITR, prepending a new IP header consists of adding more
      octets to a Message Authentication Code (MAC) rewrite string and
      prepending the string as part of the outgoing encapsulation
      procedure.  Routers that support Generic Routing Encapsulation
      (GRE) tunneling [RFC2784] or 6to4 tunneling [RFC3056] may already
      support this action.

   *  A packet's source address or the interface on which the packet was
      received can be used to select Virtual Routing and Forwarding
      (VRF).  The VRF system's routing table can be used to find EID-to-
      RLOC mappings.

   For performance issues related to Map-Cache management, see
   Section 16.

16.  Security Considerations

   In what follows, we highlight security considerations that apply when
   LISP is deployed in environments such as those specified in
   Section 1.1.

   The optional gleaning mechanism is offered to directly obtain a
   mapping from the LISP-encapsulated packets.  Specifically, an xTR can
   learn the EID-to-RLOC mapping by inspecting the source RLOC and
   source EID of an encapsulated packet and insert this new mapping into
   its Map-Cache.  An off-path attacker can spoof the source EID address
   to divert the traffic sent to the victim's spoofed EID.  If the
   attacker spoofs the source RLOC, it can mount a DoS attack by
   redirecting traffic to the spoofed victim's RLOC, potentially
   overloading it.

   The LISP data plane defines several mechanisms to monitor RLOC data
   plane reachability; in this context, Locator-Status-Bits, nonce-
   present bits, and Echo-Nonce bits of the LISP encapsulation header
   can be manipulated by an attacker to mount a DoS attack.  An off-path
   attacker able to spoof the RLOC and/or nonce of a victim's xTR can
   manipulate such mechanisms to declare false information about the
   RLOC's reachability status.

   An example of such attacks is when an off-path attacker can exploit
   the Echo-Nonce mechanism by sending data packets to an ITR with a
   random nonce from an ETR's spoofed RLOC.  Note that the attacker only
   has a small window of time within which to guess a valid nonce that
   the ITR is requesting to be echoed.  The goal is to convince the ITR
   that the ETR's RLOC is reachable even when it may not be reachable.
   If the attack is successful, the ITR believes the wrong reachability
   status of the ETR's RLOC until RLOC-Probing detects the correct
   status.  This time frame is on the order of tens of seconds.  This
   specific attack can be mitigated by preventing RLOC spoofing in the
   network by deploying Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) per BCP
   84 [RFC8704].  In order to exploit this vulnerability, the off-path
   attacker must also send Echo-Nonce packets at a high rate.  If the
   nonces have never been requested by the ITR, it can protect itself
   from erroneous reachability attacks.

   A LISP-specific uRPF check is also possible.  When decapsulating, an
   ETR can check that the source EID and RLOC are valid EID-to-RLOC
   mappings by checking the Mapping System.

   Map-Versioning is a data plane mechanism used to signal to a peering
   xTR that a local EID-to-RLOC mapping has been updated so that the
   peering xTR uses a LISP control plane signaling message to retrieve a
   fresh mapping.  This can be used by an attacker to forge the 'Map-
   Version' field of a LISP-encapsulated header and force an excessive
   amount of signaling between xTRs that may overload them.  Further
   security considerations on Map-Versioning can be found in [RFC9302].

   Locator-Status-Bits, the Echo-Nonce mechanism, and Map-Versioning
   MUST NOT be used over the public Internet and SHOULD only be used in
   trusted and closed deployments.  In addition, Locator-Status-Bits
   SHOULD be coupled with Map-Versioning to prevent race conditions
   where Locator-Status-Bits are interpreted as referring to different
   RLOCs than intended.

   LISP implementations and deployments that permit outer header
   fragments of IPv6 LISP-encapsulated packets as a means of dealing
   with MTU issues should also use implementation techniques in ETRs to
   prevent this from being a DoS attack vector.  Limits on the number of
   fragments awaiting reassembly at an ETR, RTR, or PETR, and the rate
   of admitting such fragments, may be used.

17.  Network Management Considerations

   Considerations for network management tools exist so the LISP
   protocol suite can be operationally managed.  These mechanisms can be
   found in [RFC7052] and [RFC6835].

18.  Changes since RFC 6830

   For implementation considerations, the following changes have been
   made to this document since [RFC6830] was published:

   *  It is no longer mandated that a maximum number of 2 LISP headers
      be prepended to a packet.  If there is an application need for
      more than 2 LISP headers, an implementation can support more.
      However, it is RECOMMENDED that a maximum of 2 LISP headers can be
      prepended to a packet.

   *  The 3 reserved flag bits in the LISP header have been allocated
      for [RFC8061].  The low-order 2 bits of the 3-bit field (now named
      the KK-bits) are used as a key identifier.  The 1 remaining bit is
      still documented as reserved and unassigned.

   *  Data plane gleaning for creating Map-Cache entries has been made
      optional.  Any ITR implementations that depend on or assume that
      the remote ETR is gleaning should not do so.  This does not create
      any interoperability problems, since the control plane Map-Cache
      population procedures are unilateral and are the typical method
      for populating the Map-Cache.

   *  Most of the changes to this document, which reduce its length, are
      due to moving the LISP control plane messaging and procedures to
      [RFC9301].

19.  IANA Considerations

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to this
   data plane LISP specification, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC8126].

19.1.  LISP UDP Port Numbers

   IANA has allocated UDP port number 4341 for the LISP data plane.
   IANA has updated the description for UDP port 4341 as follows:

   +==============+=============+===========+=============+===========+
   | Service Name | Port Number | Transport | Description | Reference |
   |              |             | Protocol  |             |           |
   +==============+=============+===========+=============+===========+
   | lisp-data    | 4341        | udp       | LISP Data   | RFC 9300  |
   |              |             |           | Packets     |           |
   +--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+-----------+

                                 Table 1

20.  References

20.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2983]  Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
              RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.

   [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, DOI 10.17487/RFC6040, November
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6040>.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [RFC6831]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., Zwiebel, J., and S. Venaas, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) for Multicast
              Environments", RFC 6831, DOI 10.17487/RFC6831, January
              2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6831>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8378]  Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Multicast", RFC 8378,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8378, May 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8378>.

   [RFC8704]  Sriram, K., Montgomery, D., and J. Haas, "Enhanced
              Feasible-Path Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding", BCP 84,
              RFC 8704, DOI 10.17487/RFC8704, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8704>.

   [RFC9301]  Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
              Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.

   [RFC9302]  Iannone, L., Saucez, D., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning", RFC 9302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9302, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9302>.

20.2.  Informative References

   [AFN]      IANA, "Address Family Numbers",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers>.

   [CHIAPPA]  Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint Names: A Proposed
              Enhancement to the Internet Architecture", 1999,
              <http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt>.

   [LISP-VPN] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-lisp-vpn-10, 3 October 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
              vpn-10>.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.

   [RFC2453]  Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2453, November 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2453>.

   [RFC2677]  Greene, M., Cucchiara, J., and J. Luciani, "Definitions of
              Managed Objects for the NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol
              (NHRP)", RFC 2677, DOI 10.17487/RFC2677, August 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2677>.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, DOI 10.17487/RFC3056, February
              2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3056>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

   [RFC4459]  Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
              Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4459>.

   [RFC4760]  Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
              "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC4984]  Meyer, D., Ed., Zhang, L., Ed., and K. Fall, Ed., "Report
              from the IAB Workshop on Routing and Addressing",
              RFC 4984, DOI 10.17487/RFC4984, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4984>.

   [RFC6832]  Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
              "Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6832>.

   [RFC6835]  Farinacci, D. and D. Meyer, "The Locator/ID Separation
              Protocol Internet Groper (LIG)", RFC 6835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6835, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6835>.

   [RFC6935]  Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
              UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.

   [RFC6936]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
              for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
              RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

   [RFC7052]  Schudel, G., Jain, A., and V. Moreno, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) MIB", RFC 7052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7052, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7052>.

   [RFC7215]  Jakab, L., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Coras, F., Domingo-
              Pascual, J., and D. Lewis, "Locator/Identifier Separation
              Protocol (LISP) Network Element Deployment
              Considerations", RFC 7215, DOI 10.17487/RFC7215, April
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7215>.

   [RFC8060]  Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
              Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
              February 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8060>.

   [RFC8061]  Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8061>.

   [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

   [RFC8899]  Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
              Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
              Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
              September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.

   [RFC9299]  Cabellos, A. and D. Saucez, Ed., "An Architectural
              Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", RFC 9299, DOI 10.17487/RFC9299, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9299>.

Acknowledgments

   An initial thank you goes to Dave Oran for planting the seeds for the
   initial ideas for LISP.  His consultation continues to provide value
   to the LISP authors.

   A special and appreciative thank you goes to Noel Chiappa for
   providing architectural impetus over the past decades on separation
   of location and identity, as well as detailed reviews of the LISP
   architecture and documents, coupled with enthusiasm for making LISP a
   practical and incremental transition for the Internet.

   The original authors would like to gratefully acknowledge many people
   who have contributed discussions and ideas to the making of this
   proposal.  They include Scott Brim, Andrew Partan, John Zwiebel,
   Jason Schiller, Lixia Zhang, Dorian Kim, Peter Schoenmaker, Vijay
   Gill, Geoff Huston, David Conrad, Mark Handley, Ron Bonica, Ted
   Seely, Mark Townsley, Chris Morrow, Brian Weis, Dave McGrew, Peter
   Lothberg, Dave Thaler, Eliot Lear, Shane Amante, Ved Kafle, Olivier
   Bonaventure, Luigi Iannone, Robin Whittle, Brian Carpenter, Joel
   Halpern, Terry Manderson, Roger Jorgensen, Ran Atkinson, Stig Venaas,
   Iljitsch van Beijnum, Roland Bless, Dana Blair, Bill Lynch, Marc
   Woolward, Damien Saucez, Damian Lezama, Attilla De Groot, Parantap
   Lahiri, David Black, Roque Gagliano, Isidor Kouvelas, Jesper Skriver,
   Fred Templin, Margaret Wasserman, Sam Hartman, Michael Hofling, Pedro
   Marques, Jari Arkko, Gregg Schudel, Srinivas Subramanian, Amit Jain,
   Xu Xiaohu, Dhirendra Trivedi, Yakov Rekhter, John Scudder, John
   Drake, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ross Callon, Selina Heimlich, Job
   Snijders, Vina Ermagan, Fabio Maino, Victor Moreno, Chris White,
   Clarence Filsfils, Alia Atlas, Florin Coras, and Alberto Rodriguez.

   This work originated in the Routing Research Group (RRG) of the IRTF.
   An individual submission was converted into the IETF LISP Working
   Group document that became this RFC.

   The LISP Working Group would like to give a special thanks to Jari
   Arkko, the Internet Area AD at the time that the set of LISP
   documents was being prepared for IESG Last Call, for his meticulous
   reviews and detailed commentaries on the 7 Working Group Last Call
   documents progressing toward Standards Track RFCs.

   The current authors would like to give a sincere thank you to the
   people who helped put LISP on the Standards Track in the IETF.  They
   include Joel Halpern, Luigi Iannone, Deborah Brungard, Fabio Maino,
   Scott Bradner, Kyle Rose, Takeshi Takahashi, Sarah Banks, Pete
   Resnick, Colin Perkins, Mirja Kühlewind, Francis Dupont, Benjamin
   Kaduk, Eric Rescorla, Alvaro Retana, Alexey Melnikov, Alissa Cooper,
   Suresh Krishnan, Alberto Rodriguez-Natal, Vina Ermagan, Mohamed
   Boucadair, Brian Trammell, Sabrina Tanamal, and John Drake.  The
   contributions they offered greatly added to the security, scale, and
   robustness of the LISP architecture and protocols.

Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: farinacci@gmail.com


   Vince Fuller
   vaf.net Internet Consulting
   Email: vince.fuller@gmail.com


   Dave Meyer
   1-4-5.net
   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net


   Darrel Lewis
   Cisco Systems
   San Jose, CA
   United States of America
   Email: darlewis@cisco.com


   Albert Cabellos (editor)
   Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
   c/ Jordi Girona s/n
   08034 Barcelona
   Spain
   Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu