LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alvaro Retana,Dino Farinacci,Job Snijders,Alberto Rodriguez-Natal | ||
| Last updated | 2026-02-17 | ||
| Replaces | draft-retana-lisp-rfc8060bis | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-04
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Retana, Ed.Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies, Inc.Obsoletes: 8060, 9306 (if approved) D. FarinacciIntended status: Standards Track lispers.netExpires: 21 August 2026 J. Snijders A. Rodriguez-Natal Cisco 17 February 2026 LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8060bis-04Abstract This document defines a canonical address format encoding used in Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) control messages and in the encoding of lookup keys for the LISP Mapping Database System. This document obsoletes RFC 8060 and RFC 9306.Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 August 2026.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 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 rightsRetana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 1]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. LISP Canonical Address Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. The AFI List LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1.2. Layer 2 VPNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings . . 8 4.1.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. The Instance ID LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. The AS Number LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. The Application Data LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.5. The Opaque Key LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.6. The NAT-Traversal LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.7. The Nonce Locator LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.8. The Multicast Info LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.9. The Explicit Locator Path LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.10. The Security Key LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.11. The Source/Destination LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.12. The Replication List LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.13. The JSON Data Model LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4.14. The Key/Value Address Pair LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.15. The Encapsulation Format LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.16. The Vendor-Specific LCAF Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix A: Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Version -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Version -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Version -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Version -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Version -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 2]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 20261. Introduction The LISP architecture and protocol [RFC9300] [RFC9301] introduces two namespaces: 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. The defined AFIs include IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, which are formatted as follows: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: 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 = 2 | IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv6 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: IPv6-Encoded Address This document describes the AFIs used by LISP 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 detailed uses for the LCAF Types defined in this document may be found in separate use-case documents. The same LCAF Type may be used by more than one use-case. This document obsoletes [RFC8060] and [RFC9306].Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 3]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 20262. Terminology2.1. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.2.2. Definition of Terms Readers are expected to be familiar with the terminology defined in [RFC9300].3. LISP Canonical Address Format Encoding IANA has assigned AFI value 16387 (0x4003) to the LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF). This specification defines the encoding format of the LISP Canonical Address (LCA). The AFI definitions in [AFN] 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. LISP uses the following AFIs: +===========+=================+===================================+ | AFI Value | Name | Address Length (octets) | +===========+=================+===================================+ | 0 | Unspecified | Null (see Section 3 of [RFC9300]) | | | Encoded Address | | +-----------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+ | 1 | IPv4 | 4 | +-----------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+ | 2 | IPv6 | 16 | +-----------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+ | 6 | 802 MAC Address | 6 | +-----------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+ | 17 | Distinguished | Variable: can be derived from the | | | Name | Length field. (see Section 4.1.3) | +-----------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+ | 16387 | LCAF | Variable. (see Section 4) | +-----------+-----------------+-----------------------------------+ Table 1: LISP Address Families The first 6 octets of a LISP Canonical Address Format are followed by a variable number of fields of variable length (Payload):Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 4]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | . . . (Payload) . . . | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: LISP Canonical Address Format Header Rsvd1: this field is 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. It MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt. Type: indicates the Type of the LISP Canonical Address Format encodings. The values are summarized in Table 2 (Section 6). Unrecognized Types MUST be silently ignored. If all Locators are ignored, this is equivalent to a LISP control message with Locator Count = 0, as described in [RFC9301]. If an EID-Prefix only contains unrecognized LCAF types, the LISP control message MUST be dropped and the event MUST be logged. Rsvd2: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. This field is Type-specific. Length: this 16-bit field indicates the length in octets of the LISP Canonical Address Payload. [RFC9301] 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, RLOC-address}. Therefore, when a locator-set has a mix of AFI records and LCAF records, they are ordered from smallest to largest AFI value.4. LISP Canonical Address Types The following sections specify the format of the currently defined set of Type values.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 5]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Type 0 is used to indicate a "Null Body", which requires the Length value to be set to 0. If the Length value is not 0, the Type 0 MUST be silently ignored.4.1. The AFI List LCAF Type The AFI List LCAF Type (Type 1) is used to carry a variable number of addresses in a single LCAF instance. The Payload of this LCAF Type is a sequence of one or more AFI-encoded addresses. The AFI List LCAF Type can be used in a variety of applications, some of which are described in the following subsections. 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 | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... Address | AFI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: AFI List LISP Canonical Address Format AFI: an AFI value from Table 1. Address: this field contains an address value in accordance to the AFI preceding it. It's length is variable and is determined by the AFI. See Table 1 for details. The AFI List LCAF can contain one or more AFI/Address pairs.4.1.1. Binding IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses When header translation between IPv4 and IPv6 is desirable, a LISP Canonical Address can use the AFI List LCAF Type to carry a variable number of AFIs in one LCAF AFI.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 6]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: Address Binding LISP Canonical Address Format This type of address format can be included in a Map-Request when, for example, the IPv6 address is being used as an EID, but the LISP 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. This encoding can be used in EID-records or RLOC-records in Map- Request, Map-Reply, Map-Register, and Map-Notify messages.4.1.2. Layer 2 VPNs When Media Access Control (MAC) addresses are stored in the LISP Mapping Database System, the AFI List LCAF Type can be used to carry AFI 6.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 7]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6: MAC Address LISP Canonical Address Format 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 RLOC, or even another MAC address being used as an RLOC. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] for an example.4.1.3. ASCII Names in the Mapping Database If DNS names [RFC1035] or URIs [RFC3986] are stored in the LISP Mapping Database System, the AFI List LCAF Type can be used to carry an ASCII string. 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 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: ASCII Name LISP Canonical Address Format An example for using DNS names is when an ETR registers a mapping with an EID-record encoded as (AFI=1, 192.0.2.0/24) with an RLOC- record (AFI=17, "router.example.com").4.1.4. Using Recursive LISP Canonical Address Encodings When any combination of the above is desirable, the AFI List LCAF Type value can be used to carry within the LCAF AFI another LCAF AFI (for example, Application-Specific Data in Section 4.4).Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 8]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | 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 = 1 | IPv4 Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: Recursive LISP Canonical Address Format This format could be used by a Mapping Database Service 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 LISP-ALT system can deliver the Map- Request to the LISP destination site independent of the Application Data LCAF Type AFI payload values (Section 4.4). 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.4.1.5. Compatibility Mode Use Case A LISP system should use the AFI List LCAF 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.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 9]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 = 3 | Rsvd2 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AS Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI = 0 | AFI = 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9: Compatibility Mode LISP Canonical Address Format For example, if a system does not recognize the AS Number LCAF Type (Section 4.3) that accompanies a locator address, an encoder can include the AS Number LCAF Type embedded in an AFI List LCAF Type where the AFI in the AS Number LCAF Type 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 octets of the AS Number LCAF Type to get to the locator address encoding (an IPv4 locator address). A LISP system that does support the AS Number LCAF Type can support parsing the locator address in the encoding that follows in the AFI List LCAF Type.4.2. The Instance ID LCAF Type The Instance ID LCAF Type (Type 2) is used to carry an Instance ID along with an AFI-based address. The Instance ID can be used when virtualization and segmentation are needed; see see Section 8 of [RFC9300] and [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] for more details.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 10]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 10: Instance ID LISP Canonical Address Format IID mask-len: if the AFI is set to 0, then this LCAF is encoding an Instance ID range where this field 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 and ignored. If the AFI is set to any other value, then this LCAF is encoding an extended EID prefix [I-D.ietf-lisp-8111bis]. In this case, this field is not used and MUST be set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt. Instance ID: 32-bit unstructured field. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for the Unspecified Encoded Address (0), IPv4 (1), and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Address: as specified in Section 4.1.4.3. The AS Number LCAF Type The AS Number LCAF Type (Type 3) is used to carry an Autonomous System (AS) number, which can be stored in the LISP Mapping Database System for either policy or documentation reasons.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 11]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11: AS Number LISP Canonical Address Format AS Number: the 32-bit AS number of the autonomous system that has been assigned to either the EID or RLOC that follows. Two-octet AS numbers are encoded by setting the two high-order octets of the field to zero as specified in [RFC6793]. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Address: as specified in Section 4.1. The AS Number LCAF 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.4.4. The Application Data LCAF Type The Application Data LCAF Type (Type 4) is used to carry information about the type of application or Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) [RFC2475] of packets. For example, the Application Data LCAF 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.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 12]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 12: Application Data LISP Canonical Address Format 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 the 20-bit Flow Label used in an IPv6 header. The corresponding field is selected based on the AFI value used in the Address field. The unused bits in this field MUST be set to 0 on transmission. The value MUST be included in the low-order bits of the field. Protocol: this field stores the protocol number for TCP (6), UDP (17), or Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) (132). Any other value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Local Port/Remote Port: these fields are from the TCP [RFC9293], UDP [RFC768], or SCTP [RFC9260] transport header. A range can be specified by using a lower-range and an upper-range. When a single port is encoded, the lower-range and upper-range fields MUST be the same. If the lower-range field is not equal to the upper-range field, then the lower-range field MUST be less than the upper-range field or the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Address: as specified in Section 4.1.4.5. The Opaque Key LCAF Type The Opaque Key LCAF Type (Type 6) is used to carry a generic formatted key that can be used to do a LISP Mapping Database System lookup.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 13]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 13: Opaque Key LISP Canonical Address Format Key Field Num: the value of this field is the number of "Key" sub- fields minus 1, the key can be broken up into. For example, if this field has a value of 0, there is one "Key" sub-field. The valid values range is 0 to 15. If the value is greater than 15, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. 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 Key field. Bit 0 (the low-order bit) in this bitfield corresponds the first Key field, the low-order field in the key, bit 1 the second Key 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 are set to 0, then all bits of the key are used for the database lookup. Any bits set to 1 that correspond to non-existent Key fields (for example, bit 5 set when there are only 3 Key fields) MUST be ignored. Key: a series of Key sub-fields contain the variable length key. The length of each sub-field is determined by dividing the total length of the key (Length - 3) by the number of fields (Key Field Num + 1). For example, for a key size of 8 octets (the Length field is set to 11), with a Key Field Num of 3, four sub-fields of 2 octets each are present. The number of Key fields MUST evenly divide (without remainder) into the total length of the key or the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored.4.6. The NAT-Traversal LCAF Type The NAT-Traversal LCAF Type (Type 7) can be used to carry information about global and private addresses and port numbers when a LISP system is traversing a Network Address Translation (NAT) device. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-nat-traversal] and [I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] for examples of its use.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 14]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | Global ETR RLOC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | MS RLOC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Private ETR RLOC Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | RTR RLOC Address 1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | RTR RLOC Address k ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 14: NAT-Traversal LISP Canonical Address Format MS UDP Port Number: this is the UDP port number of the Map-Server and is set to 4342 [RFC9301]. Any other value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. ETR UDP Port Number: this is the port number returned to a LISP system that was copied from the source port from a packet that has flowed through a NAT device. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Except for the last set of addresses (RTR RLOC Addresses, where AFI = 0 is also allowed), only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. All the AFI fields (including the RTR RLOC Addresses, if not using AFI = 0) MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Global ETR RLOC Address: this is an address (as specified in Section 4.1) known to be globally unique built by NAT-traversal functionality in a LISP router. MS RLOC Address: this is the address (as specified in Section 4.1) of the Map-Server used in the destination RLOC of a packet that has flowed through a NAT device. Private ETR RLOC Address: this is an address (as specified inRetana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 15]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Section 4.1) 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 (as specified in Section 4.1) used by an Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR) or Proxy Ingress Tunnel Router (PITR) that 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 zero or more NAT Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR) [RFC9300] addresses supplied in this set of fields. The number of RTRs encoded is determined by the Length field. When there are no RTRs supplied, the RTR fields can be omitted and reflected in the LCAF Length field or an AFI of 0 can be used to indicate zero RTRs encoded.4.7. The Nonce Locator LCAF Type The Nonce Locator LCAF Type (Type 8) is used to carry a nonce value along with an AFI-based address. This LCAF Type can be used, for example, by a public Proxy-ETR [RFC6832] device to verify who is encapsulating to it: it can check for a specific nonce value in the LISP-encapsulated packet. 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 | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 15: Nonce Locator LISP Canonical Address Format Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Nonce: a 24-bit nonce value returned in a Map-Reply locator-record to be used by an ITR/Proxy-ITR when encapsulating to the locator address encoded in the AFI field of this LCAF Type. This nonce value is inserted in the LISP Nonce field in the LISP header encapsulation [RFC9300]. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 16]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Address: as specified in Section 4.1.4.8. The Multicast Info LCAF Type The Multicast Info LCAF Type (Type 9) is used to carry multicast group information. Multicast group information can be published in the mapping database using the Multicast Info LCAF Type. This LCAF encoding can also be used to send broadcast packets to all members of a subnet when an EID is away from its home subnet location. 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 | Source/Subnet Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Group Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 16: Multicast Info LISP Canonical Address Format Instance ID: as defined in Section 4.2. The Instance ID in this LCAF can be used to associate a multicast forwarding entry for a given VPN. Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Source MaskLen: the mask length of the Source/Subnet Address that follows. The length is the number of high-order mask bits set. Group MaskLen: the mask length of the Group Address that follows. The length is the number of high-order mask bits set. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. All the AFI fields MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 17]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Source/Subnet Address: the source address (as specified in Section 4.1) or prefix for encoding an (S,G) multicast entry [RFC4607]. A special wildcard value consisting of an address field of all zeros can be used to indicate any source. Group Address: the group address or group prefix for encoding (S,G) or (*,G) multicast entries [RFC7761]. This field MUST be either a multicast address or a broadcast address. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored.4.9. The Explicit Locator Path LCAF Type The Explicit Locator Path (ELP) LCAF Type (Type 10) is used to carry a list of locators in an explicit re-encapsulation path. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-te] for an example. 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved |L|P|S| AFI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reencap Hop 1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved |L|P|S| AFI | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reencap Hop k ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 17: Explicit Locator Path LISP Canonical Address Format Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. L (Lookup bit): this bit indicates that the address (in the Reencap Hop field) should not be used for encapsulation, but to look it up in the mapping database system to obtain an encapsulating RLOC address. P (RLOC Probe bit): this bit indicates the Reencap Hop allows RLOC- probe messages [RFC9301] to be sent to it. When the P bit is set to 0, RLOC-probes MUST NOT be sent. If the Reencap Hop is an anycast address then the bit SHOULD be set to 0. S (Strict bit): this bit, which indicates that the associatedRetana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 18]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Reencap Hop is REQUIRED to be used. If this bit is 0, the re- encapsulator MAY skip this Reencap Hop and go to the next one in the list. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. All the AFI fields MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Reencap Hop: this is the address (as specified in Section 4.1) for reencapsulation. One or more Reencap Hops can be encoded in this LCAF. Each hop is encoded with its own set of Reserved, L, P, S, AFI, and Address fields.4.10. The Security Key LCAF Type The Security Key LCAF Type (Type 11) is used to carry security key material when a locator in a locator-set has a security key associated with it. See [I-D.ietf-lisp-8111bis] or [RFC8061] for an example. 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 | Reserved | Key Algorithm | Reserved |R| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key Length | Key Material ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... Key Material | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Locator Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 18: Security Key LISP Canonical Address Format Key Count: the Key Count field declares the number of Key Sections included in this LCAF. A Key Section is made up of the Key Length and Key Material fields. Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 19]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Key Algorithm: the Key Algorithm field identifies the key's cryptographic algorithm and specifies the format of the Public Key field. Specific use cases can specify the values for the supported algorithms. Refer to [RFC8061] for an example. 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 octets of the Key Material field. Key Material: this field stores the key material. The format of the key material stored depends on the Key Algorithm field. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Locator Address: this is the address (as specified in Section 4.1) that owns the encoded security key.4.11. The Source/Destination LCAF Type The Source/Destination LCAF Type (Type 12) is used to carry a source and destination address pair. For example, 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. Refer to [I-D.ietf-lisp-te] for an example of its use. 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 | Source-Prefix ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Destination-Prefix ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 20]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Figure 19: Source/Destination LISP Canonical Address Format Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored 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: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. All the AFI fields MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Source-Prefix: the source address prefix (as specified in Section 4.1). Destination-Prefix: the destination address prefix (as specified in Section 4.1).4.12. The Replication List LCAF Type The Replication List LCAF Type (Type 13) is used to carry a list of locators for unicast replication. See [I-D.coras-lisp-re] for an example. 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Level Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | RTR/ETR #1 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Level Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | RTR/ETR #n ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 20: Replication List Entry LISP Canonical Address Format Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST beRetana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 21]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Level Value: this value is associated with the level within the overlay distribution tree hierarchy where the RTR resides. See [I-D.coras-lisp-re] for an example. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. All the AFI fields MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. RTR/ETR: the address (as specified in Section 4.1) of the Re- encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR) or Egress Tunnel Router (ETR) participating in the overlay distribution tree. Can be either a unicast or multicast address. One or more RTR/ETR values can be encoded in this LCAF. Each one is encoded with its own set of Reserved, Level Value, AFI, and RTR/ETR fields.4.13. The JSON Data Model LCAF Type The JSON Data Model LCAF Type (Type 14) is used to carry a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data model that can be encoded as either an EID or an RLOC. 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 ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Optional Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 21: JSON Data Model LISP Canonical Address Format 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 [RFC8259]. The rest of the Rsvd2 field is as specified in Section 3 JSON length: length in octets of the JSON field.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 22]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 JSON: a variable-length field that contains either binary or text encodings. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Optional Address: an address (as specified in Section 4.1) that can be associated with the JSON data model. An example mapping is an EID-record encoded as a distinguished-name "cpe-router" and an RLOC-record encoded as a JSON string "{ "router- address" : "192.0.2.1", "router-mask" : "24" }".4.14. The Key/Value Address Pair LCAF Type The Key/Value Address Pair LCAF Type (Type 15) is used to carry a key/value address pair. This LCAF Type can be useful, for example, when attaching attributes to other elements of LISP packets, such as EIDs or RLOCs. 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 | Address as Key ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Address as Value ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 22: Key/Value Address Pair LISP Canonical Address Format AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. All the AFI fields MUST be the same. Otherwise, the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Address as Key: an address (as specified in Section 4.1) that will be attached with the attributes associated with the Address as Value field. Address as Value: an address (as specified in Section 4.1) that will be the attribute address for the Address as Key field.4.15. The Encapsulation Format LCAF Type The Encapsulation Format LCAF Type (Type 16) is used to advertise the encapsulation formats supported by an RLOC.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 23]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Encapsulations |U|G|N|v|V|l|L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AFI | Address ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 23: Encapsulation Format LISP Canonical Address Format Encapsulations: the bits in this field are reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. U: The RLOC listed in the Address field can accept Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) using destination UDP port 6080 [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue]. G: The RLOCs listed in the Address field can accept Geneve encapsulation using destination UDP port 6081 [RFC8926]. N: The RLOCs listed in the Address field can accept NV-GRE (Network Virtualization - Generic Routing Encapsulation) using IPv4/IPv6 protocol number 47 [RFC7637]. v: The RLOCs listed in the Address field can accept VXLAN-GPE (Generic Protocol Extension) encapsulation using destination UDP port 4790 [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]. V: The RLOCs listed in the Address field can accept Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) encapsulation using destination UDP port 4789 [RFC7348]. l: The RLOCs listed in the Address field can accept Layer 2 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port 8472 [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2]. L: The RLOCs listed in the Address field can accept Layer 3 LISP encapsulation using destination UDP port 4341 [RFC9300]. AFI: as specified in Section 4.1. Only AFI values for IPv4 (1) and IPv6 (2) are valid in this LCAF Type. Any other AFI value is invalid and the LCAF Type MUST be silently ignored. Address: as specified in Section 4.1.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 24]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 20264.16. The Vendor-Specific LCAF Type The Vendor-Specific LCAF (Type 255) enables organizations to have implementation-specific encodings for LCAF addresses. It relies on using the IEEE Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) [IEEE.802] to prevent collisions across vendors or organizations using the LCAF. 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 = 255 | Rsvd2 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Internal format... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 24: Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format Reserved: this field is reserved for future use and MUST be transmitted as 0 and ignored on receipt. Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI): a 24-bit field that carries an OUI or Company ID (CID) assigned by the IEEE Registration Authority (RA) as defined by the IEEE Std 802 [IEEE.802] Internal format: variable-length field that each vendor or organization can define to use with their specific OUI. The Vendor-Specific LCAF type SHOULD NOT be used in deployments where different organizations interoperate. However, there may be cases where two (or more) organizations share a common deployment on which they explicitly and mutually agree to use a particular Vendor- Specific LCAF. In that case, the organizations involved need to carefully assess the interoperability concerns for that particular deployment. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use an OUI not assigned to an organization. If a LISP device receives a LISP message containing a Vendor-Specific LCAF with an OUI that it does not understand, it MUST silently ignore it.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 25]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 20265. Security Considerations The security considerations discussed in [RFC9300], [RFC9301], and [RFC9303] apply to the LCAF encodings defined in this document and their use. An in-depth threat analysis of LISP is provided in [RFC7835]. The LCAF encodings defined in this document are intended to be used with their corresponding use cases and in self-contained environments. Users should carefully consider and document additional considerations that may result from their particular use case. As with any protocol extension, the addition of new LCAF Types increases the attack surface of the protocol. Implementers and operators should be aware of this when deploying new LCAF Types. This document also enables organizations to define new LCAFs for their internal use. It is the responsibility of these organizations to properly assess the security implications of the formats they define. Care should be taken to protect against the adverse use of information that should remain private or contained by ensuring policy controls are in place. Any such mechanism is out of scope for this document. Additionally, implementers should ensure that proper validation and error handling are in place for all LCAF Types to prevent potential attacks such as malformed data injections.6. IANA Considerations Because this document obsoletes RFC 8060 and RFC 9306, IANA is asked to change all registration information that references [RFC8060] or [RFC9306] to instead reference [[this RFC]]. IANA is also requested to update the contents of the "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" registry as indicated in Table 2. Future assignments are to be made using the Specification Required policy [RFC8126]. Assignments consist of a LISP LCAF Type Name and its associated value:Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 26]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 +=======+========================+========================+ | Value | LISP LCAF Type Name | Reference | +=======+========================+========================+ | 0 | Null Body | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 1 | AFI List | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 2 | Instance ID | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 3 | AS Number | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 4 | Application Data | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 5 | Deprecated | [I-D.ietf-lisp-geo] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 6 | Opaque Key | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 7 | NAT-Traversal | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 8 | Nonce Locator | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 9 | Multicast Info | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 10 | Explicit Locator Path | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 11 | Security Key | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 12 | Source/Dest Key | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 13 | Replication List Entry | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 14 | JSON Data Model | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 15 | Key/Value Address Pair | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 16 | Encapsulation Format | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ | 255 | Vendor-Specific | [[this RFC],Section 3] | +-------+------------------------+------------------------+ Table 2: "LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF) Types" Registry IANA is also requested to update the description for AFI 16387 in the "Address Family Numbers" registry [AFN] to reference [[this RFC]].7. ReferencesRetana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 27]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 20267.1. Normative References [IEEE.802] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802, July 2014, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6847097>. [JSON-BINARY] "Universal Binary JSON Specification", <http://ubjson.org>. [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. [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>. [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. [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>. [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>. [RFC8926] Gross, J., Ed., Ganga, I., Ed., and T. Sridhar, Ed., "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation", RFC 8926, DOI 10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8926>. [RFC9260] Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260, June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9260>.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 28]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 [RFC9293] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>. [RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>. [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>. [RFC9303] Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos, A., and D. Saucez, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Security (LISP-SEC)", RFC 9303, DOI 10.17487/RFC9303, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9303>.7.2. Informative References [AFN] IANA, "Address Family Numbers", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/>. [I-D.coras-lisp-re] Coras, F., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., Domingo-Pascual, J., Maino, F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP Replication Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- coras-lisp-re-08, 1 November 2015, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-coras-lisp- re-08>. [I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] Farinacci, D., "lispers.net LISP NAT-Traversal Implementation Report", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat-11, 30 November 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farinacci- lisp-lispers-net-nat-11>. [I-D.ietf-intarea-gue] Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP Encapsulation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-intarea-gue-09, 26 October 2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea- gue-09>.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 29]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 [I-D.ietf-lisp-8111bis] Iannone, L. and L. Jakab, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-8111bis-00, 3 September 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- lisp-8111bis-00>. [I-D.ietf-lisp-nat-traversal] Iannone, L., "NAT traversal for LISP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-nat-traversal-01, 16 February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ draft-ietf-lisp-nat-traversal-01>. [I-D.ietf-lisp-geo] Farinacci, D., "LISP Geo-Coordinates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-geo-18, 22 July 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp- geo-18>. [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Maino, F., Moreno, V., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a Unified Control Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-17, 20 October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp- eid-mobility-17>. [I-D.ietf-lisp-te] Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., Lahiri, P., and P. Pillay- Esnault, "LISP Traffic Engineering", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-te-25, 15 February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-te- 25>. [I-D.ietf-lisp-vpn] Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "LISP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-lisp-vpn-13, 3 November 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp- vpn-13>. [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13, 4 November 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- nvo3-vxlan-gpe-13>.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 30]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 [I-D.smith-lisp-layer2] Smith, M., Dutt, D., Farinacci, D., and F. Maino, "Layer 2 (L2) LISP Encapsulation Format", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-smith-lisp-layer2-03, 6 September 2013, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-smith- lisp-layer2-03>. [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>. [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>. [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>. [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>. [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, <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 31]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 [RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I., Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>. [RFC7835] Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835, DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>. [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>. [RFC9306] Rodriguez-Natal, A., Ermagan, V., Smirnov, A., Ashtaputre, V., and D. Farinacci, "Vendor-Specific LISP Canonical Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 9306, DOI 10.17487/RFC9306, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9306>.Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the people who have provided feedback on the various LCAF Types over the years. In no particular order, the authors would like to thank Vince Fuller, Gregg Schudel, Jesper Skriver, Luigi Iannone, Isidor Kouvelas, Sander Steffann, Victor Moreno, Parantap Lahiri, Michael Kowal, Fabio Maino, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, Michiel Blokzijl, Terry Manderson, Stephen Farrell, Deborah Brungard, and Joel Halpern.Contributors The following people have made significant contributions to the content of this document. Dave Meyer Individual Contributor Email: dmm@1-4-5.net Vina Ermagan Google, Inc.Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 32]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 Email: ermagan@gmail.com Anton Smirnov Cisco Email: asmirnov@cisco.com Vrushali Ashtaputre Cisco Email: vrushali@cisco.comAppendix A: Change Log This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.Version -00 This initial version is the same as RFC8060, but with updated references and using the rfcxmlv3 formatting.Version -01 * Incorporated Errata ID: 7252 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/ eid7252). * Eliminated mentions of "experiment" and "unapproved" by moving LCAFs defined in the section titled "Experimental LISP Canonical Address Applications" into the main section (Section 4). * Eliminated Geo-Coordinates. * Updated the IANA Considerations table with the full list of Types. * Eliminated the reference to RFC 3232 ("RFC 1700 Replaced by On- line Database"), which didn't provide context for AFI. * Moved the reference to RFC 6836 to be Informative; in the text it is used as an example. This addresses the downref. * To avoid a downref, moved the references to RFC 7348 and RFC 7637 to be Informative. This is inline with the other references for similar functionality in the Encapsulation Format LCAF (Section 4.15)Version -02Retana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 33]Internet-Draft LISP Canonical Address Format February 2026 * Eliminated a couple remaining mentions of Geo-Coordinates.Version -03 * Updated authors and contributors. * Focus the text on the encodings, not the use cases/applications. * Included terminology by reference. * Consolidated the acknowledgements. * Other editorial improvements.Version -04 * Merged the contents of RFC 9306 into this document.Authors' Addresses Alvaro Retana (editor) Futurewei Technologies, Inc. Email: aretana@futurewei.com Dino Farinacci lispers.net Email: farinacci@gmail.com Job Snijders Email: job@sobornost.net Alberto Rodriguez-Natal Cisco Barcelona Spain Email: natal@cisco.comRetana, et al. Expires 21 August 2026 [Page 34]