[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 RFC 8060

Network Working Group                                       D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft                                               lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental                                   D. Meyer
Expires: June 1, 2017                                            Brocade
                                                             J. Snijders
                                                                     NTT
                                                       November 28, 2016


                  LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
                        draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22

Abstract

   This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in
   LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP
   Mapping Database System.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  LISP Canonical Address Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Segmentation using LISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses  . . . . .  11
     4.4.  NAT Traversal Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.5.  Multicast Group Membership Information  . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.6.  Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels  . . .  17
     4.7.  Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database . . . . . .  18
     4.8.  Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups  . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.9.  Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding . . . .  22
     4.10. Applications for AFI List Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       4.10.1.  Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses  . . . . . . . . . .  23
       4.10.2.  Layer-2 VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       4.10.3.  ASCII Names in the Mapping Database  . . . . . . . .  25
       4.10.4.  Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings . .  26
       4.10.5.  Compatibility Mode Use Case  . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   5.  Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications  . . . . . .  28
     5.1.  Convey Application Specific Data  . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     5.2.  Generic Database Mapping Lookups  . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     5.3.  PETR Admission Control Functionality  . . . . . . . . . .  32
     5.4.  Data Model Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     5.5.  Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs  . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     5.6.  Multiple Data-Planes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
   Appendix B.  Document Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22.txt  . . . . . . . . .  42
     B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-21.txt  . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-20.txt  . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-19.txt  . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-18.txt  . . . . . . . . .  43



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


     B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-17.txt  . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt  . . . . . . . . .  43
     B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt  . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt  . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.10. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt  . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.11. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt  . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.12. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt  . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.13. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt  . . . . . . . . .  44
     B.14. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt  . . . . . . . . .  45
     B.15. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt  . . . . . . . . .  45
     B.16. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt  . . . . . . . . .  45
     B.17. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt  . . . . . . . . .  45
     B.18. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt  . . . . . . . . .  45
     B.19. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt  . . . . . . . . .  45
     B.20. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt  . . . . . . . . .  46
     B.21. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt  . . . . . . . . .  46
     B.22. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt  . . . . . . . . .  46
     B.23. Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt  . . . . . . . . .  46
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46

1.  Introduction

   The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new
   numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators
   (RLOCs).  To provide flexibility for current and future applications,
   these values can be encoded in LISP control messages using a general
   syntax that includes Address Family Identifier (AFI), length, and
   value fields.

   Currently defined AFIs include IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which are
   formatted according to code-points assigned in [AFI] as follows:

   IPv4 Encoded Address:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            AFI = 1            |       IPv4 Address ...        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     ...  IPv4 Address         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+










Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   IPv6 Encoded Address:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            AFI = 2            |       IPv6 Address ...        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ...  IPv6 Address  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ...  IPv6 Address  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ...  IPv6 Address  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     ...  IPv6 Address         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This document describes the currently-defined AFIs the LISP protocol
   uses along with their encodings and introduces the LISP Canonical
   Address Format (LCAF) that can be used to define the LISP-specific
   encodings for arbitrary AFI values.

   Specific detail uses for the LCAF types defined in this document can
   be found in the use-case documents that use them.  The same LCAF type
   may be used by more than one use-case document.  As an experimental
   specification, this work is by definition, incomplete.  The LCAF
   types defined in this document are to support experimentation and
   intended for cautious use in self-contained environments in support
   of the corresponding use-case documents.  This document provides
   assignment for an initial set of approved LCAF Types (registered with
   IANA) and additional unapproved LCAF Types [RFC6830].  The unapproved
   LCAF encodings are defined to support further study and
   experimentation.

2.  Definition of Terms

   Address Family Identifier (AFI):  a term used to describe an address
      encoding in a packet.  Address families are defined for IPv4 and
      IPv6.  See [AFI] and [RFC3232] for details.  The reserved AFI
      value of 0 is used in this specification to indicate an
      unspecified encoded address where the length of the address is 0
      bytes following the 16-bit AFI value of 0.










Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Unspecified Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            AFI = 0            |      <no address follows>
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Endpoint ID (EID):   a 32-bit (for IPv4) or 128-bit (for IPv6) value
      used in the source and destination address fields of the first
      (most inner) LISP header of a packet.  The host obtains a
      destination EID the same way it obtains a destination address
      today, for example through a DNS lookup or SIP exchange.  The
      source EID is obtained via existing mechanisms used to set a
      host's "local" IP address.  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.

   Routing Locator (RLOC):   the IPv4 or IPv6 address of an egress
      tunnel router (ETR).  It is the output of a EID-to-RLOC mapping
      lookup.  An EID maps to one or more RLOCs.  Typically, RLOCs are
      numbered from topologically aggregatable blocks that are assigned
      to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global
      Internet; where the topology is defined by the connectivity of
      provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as Provider-Assigned
      (PA) addresses.  Multiple RLOCs can be assigned to the same ETR
      device or to multiple ETR devices at a site.

3.  LISP Canonical Address Format Encodings

   IANA has assigned AFI value 16387 (0x4003) to the LISP architecture
   and protocols.  This specification defines the encoding format of the
   LISP Canonical Address (LCA).  This section defines all types for
   which an initial allocation in the LISP-LCAF registry is requested.
   See IANA Considerations section for the complete list of such types.

   The Address Family AFI definitions from [AFI] only allocate code-
   points for the AFI value itself.  The length of the address or entity
   that follows is not defined and is implied based on conventional
   experience.  When the LISP protocol uses LCAF definitions from this
   document, the AFI-based address lengths are specified in this
   document.  When new LCAF definitions are defined in other use case
   documents, the AFI-based address lengths for any new AFI encoded
   addresses are specified in those documents.







Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   The first 6 bytes of an LISP Canonical Address are followed by a
   variable number of fields of variable length:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type       |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             . . .                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Rsvd1/Rsvd2:  these 8-bit fields are reserved for future use and MUST
      be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt.

   Flags:  this 8-bit field is for future definition and use.  For now,
      set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.

   Type:  this 8-bit field is specific to the LISP Canonical Address
      formatted encodings.  Currently allocated (both approved and
      unapproved) values are:

     Type 0:  Null Body Type

     Type 1:  AFI List Type

     Type 2:  Instance ID Type

     Type 3:  AS Number Type

     Type 4:  Application Data Type

     Type 5:  Geo Coordinates Type

     Type 6:  Opaque Key Type

     Type 7:  NAT-Traversal Type

     Type 8:  Nonce Locator Type

     Type 9:  Multicast Info Type

     Type 10:  Explicit Locator Path Type

     Type 11:  Security Key Type

     Type 12:  Source/Dest Key Type



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


     Type 13:  Replication List Entry Type

     Type 14:  JSON Data Model Type

     Type 15:  Key/Value Address Pair Type

     Type 16:  Encapsulation Format Type

   Length:  this 16-bit field is in units of bytes and covers all of the
      LISP Canonical Address payload, starting and including the byte
      after the Length field.  When including the AFI, an LCAF encoded
      address will have a minimum length of 8 bytes when the Length
      field is 0.  The 8 bytes include the AFI, Flags, Type, Rsvd1,
      Rsvd2, and Length fields.  When the AFI is not next to an encoded
      address in a control message, then the encoded address will have a
      minimum length of 6 bytes when the Length field is 0.  The 6 bytes
      include the Flags, Type, Rsvd1, Rsvd2, and Length fields.

   [RFC6830] states RLOC records based on an IP address are sorted when
   encoded in control messages so the locator-set has consistent order
   across all xTRs for a given EID.  The sort order is based on sort-key
   {afi, RLOC-address}. When an RLOC based on an IP address is LCAF
   encoded, the sort-key is {afi, LCAF-Type}. Therefore, when a locator-
   set has a mix of AFI records and LCAF records, they are ordered from
   smallest to largest AFI value.


























Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.  LISP Canonical Address Applications

   The following sections define the LCAF for the currently approved
   initial set of Type values.

4.1.  Segmentation using LISP

   When multiple organizations inside of a LISP site are using private
   addresses [RFC1918] as EID-prefixes, their address spaces must remain
   segregated due to possible address duplication.  An Instance ID in
   the address encoding can aid in making the entire AFI-based address
   unique.

   Another use for the Instance ID LISP Canonical Address Format is when
   creating multiple segmented VPNs inside of a LISP site where keeping
   EID-prefix based subnets is desirable.

   Instance ID LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 2    | IID mask-len  |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Instance ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |         Address  ...          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   IID mask-len:  if the AFI is set to 0, then this format is not
      encoding an extended EID-prefix but rather an instance-ID range
      where the 'IID mask-len' indicates the number of high-order bits
      used in the Instance ID field for the range.  The low-order bits
      of the Instance ID field must be 0.

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Instance ID:  the low-order 24-bits that can go into a LISP data
      header when the I-bit is set.  See [RFC6830] for details.  The
      reason for the length difference is so that the maximum number of
      instances supported per mapping system is 2^32 while conserving
      space in the LISP data header.  This comes at the expense of
      limiting the maximum number of instances per xTR to 2^24.  If an
      xTR is configured with multiple instance-IDs where the value in




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


      the high-order 8 bits are the same, then the low-order 24 bits
      MUST be unique.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   This LISP Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID or
   RLOC addresses.

   Usage: When used as a lookup key, the EID is regarded as an extended-
   EID in the mapping system.  This encoding is used in EID records in
   Map-Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.
   When LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system
   mechanism, extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.





















4.2.  Carrying AS Numbers in the Mapping Database

   When an AS number is stored in the LISP Mapping Database System for
   either policy or documentation reasons, it can be encoded in a LISP
   Canonical Address.












Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   AS Number LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 3    |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           AS Number                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |         Address  ...          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   AS Number:  the 32-bit AS number of the autonomous system that has
      been assigned to either the EID or RLOC that follows.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   The AS Number Canonical Address Type can be used to encode either EID
   or RLOC addresses.  The former is used to describe the LISP-ALT AS
   number the EID-prefix for the site is being carried for.  The latter
   is used to describe the AS that is carrying RLOC based prefixes in
   the underlying routing system.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
   Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  When
   LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism,
   extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.



















Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.3.  Assigning Geo Coordinates to Locator Addresses

   If an ETR desires to send a Map-Reply describing the Geo Coordinates
   for each locator in its locator-set, it can use the Geo Coordinate
   Type to convey physical location information.

   Coordinates are specified using the WGS-84 (World Geodetic System)
   reference coordinate system [WGS-84].

   Geo Coordinate LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 5    |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |N|     Latitude Degrees        |    Minutes    |    Seconds    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |E|     Longitude Degrees       |    Minutes    |    Seconds    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Altitude                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |         Address  ...          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   N: When set to 1 means North, otherwise South.

   Latitude Degrees:  Valid values range from 0 to 90 degrees above or
      below the equator (northern or southern hemisphere, respectively).

   Latitude Minutes:  Valid values range from 0 to 59.

   Latitude Seconds:  Valid values range from 0 to 59.

   E: When set to 1 means East, otherwise West.

   Longitude Degrees:  Valid values are from 0 to 180 degrees right or
      left of the Prime Meridian.

   Longitude Minutes:  Valid values range from 0 to 59.

   Longitude Seconds:  Valid values range from 0 to 59.




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Altitude:  Height relative to sea level in meters.  This is a two's
      complement signed integer meaning that the altitude could be below
      sea level.  A value of 0x7fffffff indicates no Altitude value is
      encoded.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   The Geo Coordinates Canonical Address Type can be used to encode
   either EID or RLOC addresses.  When used for EID encodings, you can
   determine the physical location of an EID along with the topological
   location by observing the locator-set.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
   Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  When
   LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism,
   extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.

   The use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF encoding raises privacy issues as
   location information is privacy sensitive, and possibly unexpectedly
   privacy sensitive information may be conveyed, e.g. if the location
   information corresponds to a router located in a person's home.
   Therefore, this encoding should not be used unless needed for
   operation of a LISP deployment.  Before electing to utilize this
   encoding, care should be taken to ensure the appropriate policies are
   being used by the EID for controlling the conveyed information.


























Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.4.  NAT Traversal Scenarios

   When a LISP system is conveying global address and mapped port
   information when traversing through a NAT device, the NAT-Traversal
   LCAF Type is used.  See [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] for details.

   NAT-Traversal Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 7    |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       MS UDP Port Number      |      ETR UDP Port Number      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |  Global ETR RLOC Address  ... |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |       MS RLOC Address  ...    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          | Private ETR RLOC Address  ... |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |      RTR RLOC Address 1 ...   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |      RTR RLOC Address k ...   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   MS UDP Port Number:  this is the UDP port number of the Map-Server
      and is set to 4342.

   ETR UDP Port Number:  this is the port number returned to a LISP
      system which was copied from the source port from a packet that
      has flowed through a NAT device.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   Global ETR RLOC Address:  this is an address known to be globally
      unique built by NAT-traversal functionality in a LISP router.

   MS RLOC Address:  this is the address of the Map-Server used in the
      destination RLOC of a packet that has flowed through a NAT device.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Private ETR RLOC Address:  this is an address known to be a private
      address inserted in this LCAF by a LISP router that resides on the
      private side of a NAT device.

   RTR RLOC Address:  this is an encapsulation address used by an ITR or
      PITR which resides behind a NAT device.  This address is known to
      have state in a NAT device so packets can flow from it to the LISP
      ETR behind the NAT.  There can be one or more NAT Reencapsulating
      Tunnel Router (RTR) [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal] addresses
      supplied in these set of fields.  The number of RTRs encoded is
      determined by parsing each field.  When there are no RTRs
      supplied, the RTR fields can be omitted and reflected by the LCAF
      length field or an AFI of 0 can be used to indicate zero RTRs
      encoded.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in Info-Request and Info-Reply
   messages.  The mapping system does not store this information.  The
   information is used by an xTR and Map-Server to convey private and
   public address information when traversing NAT and firewall devices.

   Care should be taken to protect privacy against the adverse use of a
   Global or Private ETR RLOC Address by ensuring policy controls are
   used during EID registrations that use this LCAF Type in RLOC-
   records.  Refer to the use case documents for additional information.



























Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.5.  Multicast Group Membership Information

   Multicast group information can be published in the mapping database.
   So a lookup on a group address EID can return a replication list of
   RLOC group addresses or RLOC unicast addresses.  The intent of this
   type of unicast replication is to deliver packets to multiple ETRs at
   receiver LISP multicast sites.  The locator-set encoding for this EID
   record type can be a list of ETRs when they each register with "Merge
   Semantics".  The encoding can be a typical AFI-encoded locator
   address.  When an RTR list is being registered (with multiple levels
   according to [I-D.coras-lisp-re]), the Replication List Entry LCAF
   type is used for locator encoding.

   This LCAF encoding can be used to send broadcast packets to all
   members of a subnet when an EID is away from its home subnet
   location.

   Multicast Info Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 9    |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Instance-ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Reserved           | Source MaskLen| Group MaskLen |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |   Source/Subnet Address  ...  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |       Group Address  ...      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Reserved:  must be set to zero and ignored on receipt.

   Instance ID:  the low-order 24-bits that can go into a LISP data
      header when the I-bit is set.  See [RFC6830] for details.  The use
      of the Instance-ID in this LCAF type is to associate a multicast
      forwarding entry for a given VPN.  The instance-ID describes the
      VPN and is registered to the mapping database system as a 3-tuple
      of (Instance-ID, S-prefix, G-prefix).





Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Source MaskLen:  the mask length of the source prefix that follows.
      The length is the number of high-order mask bits set.

   Group MaskLen:  the mask length of the group prefix that follows.
      The length is the number of high-order mask bits set.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].  When a specific address
      family has a multicast address semantic, this field must be either
      a group address or a broadcast address.

   Source/Subnet Address:  is the source address or prefix for encoding
      a (S,G) multicast entry.

   Group Address:  is the group address or group prefix for encoding
      (S,G) or (*,G) multicast entries.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-
   Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  When LISP-DDT
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
   EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.































Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.6.  Traffic Engineering using Re-encapsulating Tunnels

   For a given EID lookup into the mapping database, this LCAF can be
   returned to provide a list of locators in an explicit re-
   encapsulation path.  See [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for details.

   Explicit Locator Path (ELP) Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 10   |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Rsvd3         |L|P|S|           AFI = x             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Reencap Hop 1  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Rsvd3         |L|P|S|           AFI = x             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Reencap Hop k  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Rsvd3:  this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted
      as 0 and ignored on receipt.

   Lookup bit (L):  this is the Lookup bit used to indicate to the user
      of the ELP to not use this address for encapsulation but to look
      it up in the mapping database system to obtain an encapsulating
      RLOC address.

   RLOC-Probe bit (P):  this is the RLOC-probe bit which means the
      Reencap Hop allows RLOC-probe messages to be sent to it.  When the
      R-bit is set to 0, RLOC-probes must not be sent.  When a Reencap
      Hop is an anycast address then multiple physical Reencap Hops are
      using the same RLOC address.  In this case, RLOC-probes are not
      needed because when the closest RLOC address is not reachable
      another RLOC address can be reachable.

   Strict bit (S):  this is the strict bit which means the associated
      Reencap Hop is required to be used.  If this bit is 0, the
      reencapsulator can skip this Reencap Hop and go to the next one in
      the list.




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].  When a specific AFI has
      its own encoding of a multicast address, this field must be either
      a group address or a broadcast address.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
   Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  This encoding
   does not need to be understood by the mapping system for mapping
   database lookups since this LCAF type is not a lookup key.





















4.7.  Storing Security Data in the Mapping Database

   When a locator in a locator-set has a security key associated with
   it, this LCAF will be used to encode key material.  See
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] for details.

















Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Security Key Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 11   |      Rsvd2    |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Key Count   |      Rsvd3    | Key Algorithm |   Rsvd4     |R|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Key Length          |       Key Material ...        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        ... Key Material                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |       Locator Address ...     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Key Count:  the Key Count field declares the number of Key sections
      included in this LCAF.  A key section is made up of "Key Length"
      and "Key Material" fields.

   Rsvd3:  this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted
      as 0 and ignored on receipt.

   Key Algorithm:  the Algorithm field identifies the key's
      cryptographic algorithm and specifies the format of the Public Key
      field.  Refer to the [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] and
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-crypto] use cases for definitions of this field.

   Rsvd4:  this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted
      as 0 and ignored on receipt.

   R bit:  this is the revoke bit and, if set, it specifies that this
      Key is being Revoked.

   Key Length:  this field determines the length in bytes of the Key
      Material field.

   Key Material:  the Key Material field stores the key material.  The
      format of the key material stored depends on the Key Algorithm
      field.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].  This is the locator
      address that owns the encoded security key.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
   Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  When
   LISP-DDT [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism,
   extended EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.





















4.8.  Source/Destination 2-Tuple Lookups

   When both a source and destination address of a flow need
   consideration for different locator-sets, this 2-tuple key is used in
   EID fields in LISP control messages.  When the Source/Dest key is
   registered to the mapping database, it can be encoded as a source-
   prefix and destination-prefix.  When the Source/Dest is used as a key
   for a mapping database lookup the source and destination come from a
   data packet.

















Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Source/Dest Key Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 12   |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Reserved           |   Source-ML   |    Dest-ML    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |         Source-Prefix ...     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = y          |     Destination-Prefix ...    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Reserved:  must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.

   Source-ML:  the mask length of the source prefix that follows.  The
      length is the number of high-order mask bits set.

   Dest-ML:  the mask length of the destination prefix that follows.
      The length is the number of high-order mask bits set.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   AFI = y:  y can be any AFI value from [AFI].  When a specific address
      family has a multicast address semantic, this field must be either
      a group address or a broadcast address.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-
   Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  When LISP-DDT
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
   EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.  Refer to
   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te] for usage details of this LCAF type.













Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.9.  Replication List Entries for Multicast Forwarding

   The Replication List Entry LCAF type is an encoding for a locator
   being used for unicast replication according to the specification in
   [I-D.coras-lisp-re].  This locator encoding is pointed to by a
   Multicast Info LCAF Type and is registered by Re-encapsulating Tunnel
   Routers (RTRs) that are participating in an overlay distribution
   tree.  Each RTR will register its locator address and its configured
   level in the distribution tree.

   Replication List Entry Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 13   |    Rsvd2      |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Rsvd3            |     Rsvd4     |  Level Value  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |           RTR/ETR #1 ...      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Rsvd3            |     Rsvd4     |  Level Value  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |           RTR/ETR  #n ...     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Rsvd3/Rsvd4:  must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.

   Level Value:  this value is associated with the level within the
      overlay distribution tree hierarchy where the RTR resides.  The
      level numbers are ordered from lowest value being close to the ITR
      (meaning that ITRs replicate to level-0 RTRs) and higher levels
      are further downstream on the distribution tree closer to ETRs of
      multicast receiver sites.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].  A specific AFI has its
      own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address.
      For efficiency reasons, all RTR/ETR entries for the same level
      should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching
      through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map-
      Reply message.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
   Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.

4.10.  Applications for AFI List Type

4.10.1.  Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses

   When header translation between IPv4 and IPv6 is desirable a LISP
   Canonical Address can use the AFI List Type to carry a variable
   number of AFIs in one LCAF AFI.

   Address Binding LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 1    |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            AFI = 1            |       IPv4 Address ...        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     ...  IPv4 Address         |            AFI = 2            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          IPv6 Address ...                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ...  IPv6 Address  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ...  IPv6 Address  ...                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     ...  IPv6 Address                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   This type of address format can be included in a Map-Request when the
   address is being used as an EID, but the Mapping Database System
   lookup destination can use only the IPv4 address.  This is so a
   Mapping Database Service Transport System, such as LISP-ALT
   [RFC6836], can use the Map-Request destination address to route the
   control message to the desired LISP site.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID or RLOC records in Map-
   Requests, Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  See
   subsections in this section for specific use cases.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.10.2.  Layer-2 VPNs

   When MAC addresses are stored in the LISP Mapping Database System,
   the AFI List Type can be used to carry AFI 6.

   MAC Address LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 1    |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             AFI = 6           |    Layer-2 MAC Address  ...   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    ... Layer-2 MAC Address                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   This address format can be used to connect layer-2 domains together
   using LISP over an IPv4 or IPv6 core network to create a layer-2 VPN.
   In this use case, a MAC address is being used as an EID, and the
   locator-set that this EID maps to can be an IPv4 or IPv6 RLOCs, or
   even another MAC address being used as an RLOC.  See
   [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility] for how layer-2 VPNs operate when
   doing EID mobility.

   Care should be taken to protect privacy against the adverse use of a
   Layer-2 MAC Address by ensuring policy controls are used during EID
   registrations that use AFI=6 encodings in RLOC-records.  Refer to the
   use case documents for additional information.

















Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.10.3.  ASCII Names in the Mapping Database

   If DNS names [RFC1035] or URIs [RFC3986] are stored in the LISP
   Mapping Database System, the AFI List Type can be used to carry an
   ASCII string.

   ASCII LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 1    |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             AFI = 17          |      DNS Name or URI  ...     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   An example for using DNS names is when an ETR registers a mapping
   with an EID-record encoded as (AFI=1, 10.0.0.0/8) with a RLOC-record
   (AFI=17, "router.abc.com").



























Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.10.4.  Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings

   When any combination of above is desirable, the AFI List Type value
   can be used to carry within the LCAF AFI another LCAF AFI (for
   example, Application Specific Data see Section 5.1.

   Recursive LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 1    |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 4    |     Rsvd2     |            Length2            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   IP TOS, IPv6 TC or Flow Label               |    Protocol   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Local Port (lower-range)   |    Local Port (upper-range)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Remote Port (lower-range)   |   Remote Port (upper-range)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            AFI = 1            |       IPv4 Address ...        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     ...  IPv4 Address         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Length2:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length2 field.

   This format could be used by a Mapping Database Transport System,
   such as LISP-ALT [RFC6836], where the AFI=1 IPv4 address is used as
   an EID and placed in the Map-Request destination address by the
   sending LISP system.  The ALT system can deliver the Map-Request to
   the LISP destination site independent of the Application Data Type
   AFI payload values.  When this AFI is processed by the destination
   LISP site, it can return different locator-sets based on the type of
   application or level of service that is being requested.







Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


4.10.5.  Compatibility Mode Use Case

   A LISP system should use the AFI List Type format when sending to
   LISP systems that do not support a particular LCAF Type used to
   encode locators.  This allows the receiving system to be able to
   parse a locator address for encapsulation purposes.  The list of AFIs
   in an AFI List LCAF Type has no semantic ordering and a receiver
   should parse each AFI element no matter what the ordering.

   Compatibility Mode Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 1    |     Rsvd2     |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 5    |     Rsvd2     |           Length2             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |N|     Latitude Degrees        |    Minutes    |    Seconds    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |E|     Longitude Degrees       |    Minutes    |    Seconds    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Altitude                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = 0          |           AFI = 1             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          IPv4 Address                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Length2:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length2 field.

   If a system does not recognized the Geo Coordinate LCAF Type that is
   accompanying a locator address, an encoder can include the Geo
   Coordinate LCAF Type embedded in a AFI List LCAF Type where the AFI
   in the Geo Coordinate LCAF is set to 0 and the AFI encoded next in
   the list is encoded with a valid AFI value to identify the locator
   address.

   A LISP system is required to support the AFI List LCAF Type to use
   this procedure.  It would skip over 10 bytes of the Geo Coordinate



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   LCAF Type to get to the locator address encoding (an IPv4 locator
   address).  A LISP system that does support the Geo Coordinate LCAF
   Type can support parsing the locator address within the Geo
   Coordinate LCAF encoding or in the locator encoding that follows in
   the AFI List LCAF.































5.  Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications

   The following sections describe experimental LCAF encodings.  These
   LCAF Types are not approved (registered with IANA).  The inclusion of
   these encodings in this document are in support of further study and
   experimentation to determine whether these encodings are functional,
   if there is a demand for these use cases, and better understand
   deployment considerations.  As noted previously, these LCAF Types are
   restricted to cautious use in self-contained environments in support
   of the corresponding use-case documents.





Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


5.1.  Convey Application Specific Data

   When a locator-set needs to be conveyed based on the type of
   application or the Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) of a packet, the
   Application Data Type can be used.

   Application Data LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 4    |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       IP TOS, IPv6 TC, or Flow Label          |    Protocol   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Local Port (lower-range)   |    Local Port (upper-range)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Remote Port (lower-range)   |   Remote Port (upper-range)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |         Address  ...          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   IP TOS, IPv6 TC, or Flow Label:  this field stores the 8-bit IPv4 TOS
      field used in an IPv4 header, the 8-bit IPv6 Traffic Class or Flow
      Label used in an IPv6 header.

   Local Port/Remote Port Ranges:  these fields are from the TCP, UDP,
      or SCTP transport header.  A range can be specified by using a
      lower value and an upper value.  When a single port is encoded,
      the lower and upper value fields are the same.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   The Application Data Canonical Address Type is used for an EID
   encoding when an ITR wants a locator-set for a specific application.
   When used for an RLOC encoding, the ETR is supplying a locator-set
   for each specific application is has been configured to advertise.

   Usage: This encoding can be used in EID records in Map-Requests, Map-
   Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.  When LISP-DDT
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt] is used as the mapping system mechanism, extended
   EIDs are used in Map-Referral messages.  This LCAF type is used as a




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   lookup key to the mapping system that can return a longest-match or
   exact-match entry.





















5.2.  Generic Database Mapping Lookups

   When the LISP Mapping Database system holds information accessed by a
   generic formatted key (where the key is not the usual IPv4 or IPv6
   address), an opaque key may be desirable.

   Opaque Key LISP Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 6    |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Key Field Num |      Key Wildcard Fields      |   Key . . .   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       . . . Key                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Key Field Num:  the value of this field is the number of "Key" sub-
      fields minus 1, the "Key" field can be broken up into.  So if this



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


      field has a value of 0, there is 1 sub-field in the "Key".  The
      width of the sub-fields are fixed length.  So for a key size of 8
      bytes, with a Key Field Num of 3, allows 4 sub-fields of 2 bytes
      each in length.  Allowing for a reasonable number of 16 sub-field
      separators, valid values range from 0 to 15.

   Key Wildcard Fields:  describes which fields in the key are not used
      as part of the key lookup.  This wildcard encoding is a bitfield.
      Each bit is a don't-care bit for a corresponding field in the key.
      Bit 0 (the low-order bit) in this bitfield corresponds the first
      field, the low-order field in the key, bit 1 the second field, and
      so on.  When a bit is set in the bitfield it is a don't-care bit
      and should not be considered as part of the database lookup.  When
      the entire 16-bits is set to 0, then all bits of the key are used
      for the database lookup.

   Key:  the variable length key used to do a LISP Database Mapping
      lookup.  The length of the key is the value n (as shown above).

   Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
   defined yet.






























Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


5.3.  PETR Admission Control Functionality

   When a public PETR device wants to verify who is encapsulating to it,
   it can check for a specific nonce value in the LISP encapsulated
   packet.  To convey the nonce to admitted ITRs or PITRs, this LCAF is
   used in a Map-Register or Map-Reply locator-record.

   Nonce Locator Canonical Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 8    |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Reserved    |                  Nonce                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |         Address  ...          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Reserved:  must be set to zero and ignore on receipt.

   Nonce:  this is a nonce value returned by an ETR in a Map-Reply
      locator-record to be used by an ITR or PITR when encapsulating to
      the locator address encoded in the AFI field of this LCAF type.
      This nonce value is inserted in the nonce field in the LISP header
      encapsulation.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].

   Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
   defined yet.















Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


5.4.  Data Model Encoding

   This type allows a JSON data model to be encoded either as an EID or
   RLOC.

   JSON Data Model Type Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 14   |    Rsvd2    |B|            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           JSON length         | JSON binary/text encoding ... |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |       Optional Address ...    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   B bit:  indicates that the JSON field is binary encoded according to
      [JSON-BINARY] when the bit is set to 1.  Otherwise the encoding is
      based on text encoding according to [RFC7159].

   JSON length:  length in octets of the following 'JSON binary/text
      encoding' field.

   JSON binary/text encoding field:  a variable length field that
      contains either binary or text encodings.

   AFI = x:  x can be any AFI value from [AFI].  A specific AFI has its
      own encoding of either a unicast or multicast locator address.
      All RTR/ETR entries for the same level should be combined together
      by a Map-Server to avoid searching through the entire multi-level
      list of locator entries in a Map-Reply message.

   Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
   defined yet.  An example mapping is an EID-record encoded as a
   distinguished-name "cpe-rotuer" and a RLOC-record encoded as a JSON
   string "{ "router-address" : "1.1.1.1", "router-mask" : "8" }".









Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


5.5.  Encoding Key/Value Address Pairs

   The Key/Value pair is, for example, useful for attaching attributes
   to other elements of LISP packets, such as EIDs or RLOCs.  When
   attaching attributes to EIDs or RLOCs, it's necessary to distinguish
   between the element that should be used as EID or RLOC, and hence as
   the key for lookups, and additional attributes.  This is especially
   the case when the difference cannot be determined from the types of
   the elements, such as when two IP addresses are being used.

   Key/Value Pair Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 15   |     Rsvd2     |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |       Address as Key ...      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = y          |       Address as Value ...    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   AFI = x:  x is the "Address as Key" AFI that can have any value from
      [AFI].  A specific AFI has its own encoding of either a unicast or
      multicast locator address.  All RTR/ETR entries for the same level
      should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid searching
      through the entire multi-level list of locator entries in a Map-
      Reply message.

   Address as Key:  this AFI-encoded address will be attached with the
      attributes encoded in "Address as Value" which follows this field.

   AFI = y:  y is the "Address of Value" AFI that can have any value
      from [AFI].  A specific AFI has its own encoding of either a
      unicast or multicast locator address.  All RTR/ETR entries for the
      same level should be combined together by a Map-Server to avoid
      searching through the entire multi-level list of locator entries
      in a Map-Reply message.

   Address as Value:  this AFI-encoded address will be the attribute
      address that goes along with "Address as Key" which precedes this
      field.




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Usage: This is an experimental type where the usage has not been
   defined yet.































5.6.  Multiple Data-Planes

   Overlays are becoming popular in many parts of the network which have
   created an explosion of data-plane encapsulation headers.  Since the
   LISP mapping system can hold many types of address formats, it can
   represent the encapsulation format supported by an RLOC as well.
   When an encapsulator receives a Map-Reply with an Encapsulation
   Format LCAF Type encoded in an RLOC-record, it can select an
   encapsulation format, that it can support, from any of the
   encapsulation protocols which have the bit set to 1 in this LCAF
   type.







Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Encapsulation Format Address 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           AFI = 16387         |     Rsvd1     |     Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 16   |     Rsvd2     |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations       |U|G|N|v|V|l|L|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              AFI = x          |          Address ...          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  length in bytes starting and including the byte after this
      Length field.

   Reserved-for-Future-Encapsulations:  must be set to zero and ignored
      on receipt.  This field will get bits allocated to future
      encapsulations, as they are created.

   L: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept layer 3 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port
      4341 [RFC6830].

   l: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept layer 2 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port
      8472 [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2].

   V: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept VXLAN encapsulation using destination UDP port 4789
      [RFC7348].

   v: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept VXLAN-GPE encapsulation using destination UDP port 4790
      [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe].

   N: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept NV-GRE encapsulation using IPv4/ IPv6 protocol number
      47 [RFC7637].

   G: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept GENEVE encapsulation using destination UDP port 6081
      [I-D.gross-geneve].

   U: The RLOCs listed in the AFI-encoded addresses in the next longword
      can accept GUE encapsulation using destination UDP port TBD
      [I-D.herbert-gue].



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Usage: This encoding can be used in RLOC records in Map-Requests,
   Map-Replies, Map-Registers, and Map-Notify messages.









































6.  Security Considerations

   This document is classified as Experimental.  The LCAF encodings
   defined in this document are intended to be used with their
   corresponding use cases and in self-contained environments.  Users



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   should carefully consider how the [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] threat model
   applies to their particular use case.

   The use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type may raise physical privacy
   issues.  Care should be taken when configuring the mapping system to
   use specific policy parameters so geo-location information is not
   returned gratuitously.  It is recommended that any documents that
   specify the use of the Geo-Coordinates LCAF Type should consider the
   applicability of the BCP160 [RFC6280] for location-based privacy
   protection.

   Additional privacy concerns have arisen since publication of BCP160,
   and future work on LISP should examine potential threats beyond
   BCP160 and address improving privacy and security for LISP
   deployments.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in
   LISP control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP
   Mapping Database System.  Such address format is based on a fixed AFI
   (16387) and a LISP LCAF Type field.

   The LISP LCAF Type field is an 8-bit field specific to the LISP
   Canonical Address formatted encodings, for which IANA is to create
   and maintain a new registry (as outlined in [RFC5226]) entitled "LISP
   LCAF Type".  Initial values for the LISP LCAF Type registry are given
   below.  Future assignments are to be made based on specification
   required.  Assignments consist of a LISP LCAF Type name and its
   associated value:

           +-------+------------------------------+------------+
           | Value | LISP LCAF Type Name          | Definition |
           +-------+------------------------------+------------+
           | 0     | Null Body Type               | Section 3  |
           | 1     | AFI List Type                | Section 3  |
           | 2     | Instance ID Type             | Section 3  |
           | 3     | AS Number Type               | Section 3  |
           | 5     | Geo Coordinates Type         | Section 3  |
           | 7     | NAT-Traversal Type           | Section 3  |
           | 9     | Multicast Info Type          | Section 3  |
           | 10    | Explicit Locator Path Type   | Section 3  |
           | 11    | Security Key Type            | Section 3  |
           | 12    | Source/Dest Key Type         | Section 3  |
           | 13    | Replication List Entry Type  | Section 3  |
           +-------+------------------------------+------------+

                  Table 1: LISP LCAF Type Initial Values



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [BCP160]   "An Architecture for Location and Location Privacy in
              Internet Applications", Best Current Practices
              https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp160.txt, July 2011.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

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

   [RFC3232]  Reynolds, J., Ed., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced
              by an On-line Database", RFC 3232, DOI 10.17487/RFC3232,
              January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3232>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC6280]  Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
              Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture for
              Location and Location Privacy in Internet Applications",
              BCP 160, RFC 6280, DOI 10.17487/RFC6280, July 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6280>.

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





Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
              January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

   [RFC7348]  Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
              L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
              eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
              Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
              Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [RFC7637]  Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
              Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
              RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [AFI]      IANA, , "Address Family Identifier (AFIs)", ADDRESS FAMILY
              NUMBERS http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
              numbers/address-family-numbers.xhtml?, Febuary 2007.

   [I-D.coras-lisp-re]
              Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J.,
              Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication
              Engineering", draft-coras-lisp-re-08 (work in progress),
              November 2015.

   [I-D.ermagan-lisp-nat-traversal]
              Ermagan, V., Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Skriver, J., Maino,
              F., and C. White, "NAT traversal for LISP", draft-ermagan-
              lisp-nat-traversal-11 (work in progress), August 2016.

   [I-D.farinacci-lisp-te]
              Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
              Engineering Use-Cases", draft-farinacci-lisp-te-11 (work
              in progress), September 2016.

   [I-D.gross-geneve]
              Gross, J., Sridhar, T., Garg, P., Wright, C., Ganga, I.,
              Agarwal, P., Duda, K., Dutt, D., and J. Hudson, "Geneve:
              Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", draft-
              gross-geneve-02 (work in progress), October 2014.



Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   [I-D.herbert-gue]
              Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
              Encapsulation", draft-herbert-gue-03 (work in progress),
              March 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-crypto]
              Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "LISP Data-Plane
              Confidentiality", draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-10 (work in
              progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-ddt]
              Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
              Smirnov, "LISP Delegated Database Tree", draft-ietf-lisp-
              ddt-08 (work in progress), September 2016.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
              Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
              Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12
              (work in progress), November 2016.

   [I-D.portoles-lisp-eid-mobility]
              Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
              F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
              Unified Control Plane", draft-portoles-lisp-eid-
              mobility-01 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [I-D.quinn-vxlan-gpe]
              Quinn, P., Manur, R., Kreeger, L., Lewis, D., Maino, F.,
              Smith, M., Agarwal, P., Yong, L., Xu, X., Elzur, U., Garg,
              P., and D. Melman, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN",
              draft-quinn-vxlan-gpe-04 (work in progress), February
              2015.

   [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2]
              Smith, M., Dutt, D., Farinacci, D., and F. Maino, "Layer 2
              (L2) LISP Encapsulation Format", draft-smith-lisp-
              layer2-03 (work in progress), September 2013.

   [JSON-BINARY]
              "Universal Binary JSON Specification",
              URL http://ubjson.org.

   [WGS-84]   Geodesy and Geophysics Department, DoD., "World Geodetic
              System 1984", NIMA TR8350.2, January 2000, <http://earth-
              info.nga.mil/GandG/publications/tr8350.2/wgs84fin.pdf>.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 41]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Vince Fuller, Gregg Schudel, Jesper
   Skriver, Luigi Iannone, Isidor Kouvelas, and Sander Steffann for
   their technical and editorial commentary.

   The authors would like to thank Victor Moreno for discussions that
   lead to the definition of the Multicast Info LCAF type.

   The authors would like to thank Parantap Lahiri and Michael Kowal for
   discussions that lead to the definition of the Explicit Locator Path
   (ELP) LCAF type.

   The authors would like to thank Fabio Maino and Vina Ermagan for
   discussions that lead to the definition of the Security Key LCAF
   type.

   The authors would like to thank Albert Cabellos-Aparicio and Florin
   Coras for discussions that lead to the definition of the Replication
   List Entry LCAF type.

   Thanks goes to Michiel Blokzijl and Alberto Rodriguez-Natal for
   suggesting new LCAF types.

   Thanks also goes to Terry Manderson for assistance obtaining a LISP
   AFI value from IANA.

   And finally, the authors thank Stephen Farrell (Security Area
   Director) and Deborah Brungard (Routing Area Director) for their
   suggested text to get the document through IESG review.

Appendix B.  Document Change Log

   [RFC Editor: Please delete this section on publication as RFC.]

B.1.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-22.txt

   o  Submitted November 2016.

   o  Take into account RTG area director Deborah Brungard's comments
      suggestions.

   o  The changes put in shoudl clear Stephen's DISCUSS comments on
      RLOC-record ordering and privacy concerns with the Geo-Coordinate
      LCAF type.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 42]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


B.2.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-21.txt

   o  Submitted November 2016.

   o  Reflect Alexey's DISCUSS comments.

   o  Add text to intro section that says the details for any LCAF type
      can be found in other use-case documents.

   o  Provide general examples for JSON and DNS LCAF types.

B.3.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-20.txt

   o  Submitted October 2016.

   o  Put in references to DNS names and URIs per Alexey's comment.

B.4.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-19.txt

   o  Submitted October 2016.

   o  Make it more clear that any use-case documents that use the Geo-
      Coordinates LCAF type should discuss RFC6280 compliance.

B.5.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-18.txt

   o  Submitted October 2016 after October 13th telechat.

   o  Addressed comments from Ben Campbell, Jari Arrko, Stephen Farrel,
      Peter Yee, Dale Worley, Mirja Kuehlewind, and Suresh Krishnan.

B.6.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-17.txt

   o  Submitted October 2016.

   o  Addressed comments from Gen-ART reviewer Peter Yee.

   o  Addressed IESG last-call comments from Suresh Krishnan.

B.7.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16.txt

   o  Submitted October 2016.

   o  Addressed comments from Security Directorate reviewer David
      Mandelberg.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 43]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


B.8.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-15.txt

   o  Submitted September 2016.

   o  Addressed comments from Routing Directorate reviewer Stig Venass.

B.9.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-14.txt

   o  Submitted July 2016.

   o  Fix IDnits errors and comments from Luigi Iannone, document
      shepherd.

B.10.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-13.txt

   o  Submitted May 2016.

   o  Explain the Instance-ID LCAF Type is 32-bits in length and the
      Instance-ID field in the LISP encapsulation header is 24-bits.

B.11.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-12.txt

   o  Submitted March 2016.

   o  Updated references and document timer.

   o  Removed the R, J, and L bits from the Multicast Info Type LCAF
      since working group decided to not go forward with draft-
      farinacci-lisp-mr-signaling-03.txt in favor of draft- ietf-lisp-
      signal-free-00.txt.

B.12.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-11.txt

   o  Submitted September 2015.

   o  Reflecting comments from Prague LISP working group.

   o  Readying document for a LISP LCAF registry, RFC publication, and
      for new use cases that will be defined in the new charter.

B.13.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-10.txt

   o  Submitted June 2015.

   o  Fix coauthor Job's contact information.






Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 44]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


B.14.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-09.txt

   o  Submitted June 2015.

   o  Fix IANA Considerations section to request a registry to allocate
      and track LCAF Type values.

B.15.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-08.txt

   o  Submitted April 2015.

   o  Comment from Florin.  The Application Data Type length field has a
      typo.  The field should be labeled "12 + n" and not "8 + n".

   o  Fix length fields in the sections titled "Using Recursive LISP
      Canonical Address Encodings", "Generic Database Mapping Lookups",
      and "Data Model Encoding".

B.16.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-07.txt

   o  Submitted December 2014.

   o  Add a new LCAF Type called "Encapsulation Format" so decapsulating
      xTRs can inform encapsulating xTRs what data-plane encapsulations
      they support.

B.17.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-06.txt

   o  Submitted October 2014.

   o  Make it clear how sorted RLOC records are done when LCAFs are used
      as the RLOC record.

B.18.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-05.txt

   o  Submitted May 2014.

   o  Add a length field of the JSON payload that can be used for either
      binary or text encoding of JSON data.

B.19.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-04.txt

   o  Submitted January 2014.

   o  Agreement among ELP implementors to have the AFI 16-bit field
      adjacent to the address.  This will make the encoding consistent
      with all other LCAF type address encodings.




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 45]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


B.20.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-03.txt

   o  Submitted September 2013.

   o  Updated references and author's affilations.

   o  Added Instance-ID to the Multicast Info Type so there is relative
      ease in parsing (S,G) entries within a VPN.

   o  Add port range encodings to the Application Data LCAF Type.

   o  Add a new JSON LCAF Type.

   o  Add Address Key/Value LCAF Type to allow attributes to be attached
      to an address.

B.21.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-02.txt

   o  Submitted March 2013.

   o  Added new LCAF Type "Replication List Entry" to support LISP
      replication engineering use cases.

   o  Changed references to new LISP RFCs.

B.22.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-01.txt

   o  Submitted January 2013.

   o  Change longitude range from 0-90 to 0-180 in section 4.4.

   o  Added reference to WGS-84 in section 4.4.

B.23.  Changes to draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-00.txt

   o  Posted first working group draft August 2012.

   o  This draft was renamed from draft-farinacci-lisp-lcaf-10.txt.

Authors' Addresses

   Dino Farinacci
   lispers.net
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: farinacci@gmail.com




Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 46]


Internet-Draft    LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)     November 2016


   Dave Meyer
   Brocade
   San Jose, CA
   USA

   Email: dmm@1-4-5.net


   Job Snijders
   NTT Communications
   Theodorus Majofskistraat 100
   Amsterdam  1065 SZ
   The Netherlands

   Email: job@ntt.net




































Farinacci, et al.         Expires June 1, 2017                 [Page 47]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/