Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 9304
Category: Standards Track October 2022
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message and IANA
Registry for Packet Type Allocations
This document specifies a Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting
experiments without consuming a LISP Packet Type codepoint for each
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9304
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents 1.
Requirements Language 3.
LISP Shared Extension Message Type 4.
Security Considerations 5.
IANA Considerations 5.1.
LISP Packet Types 5.2.
Changes from RFC 8113 7.
The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification,
], defines a set of primitives that are identified with a
packet type code. Several extensions have been proposed to add more
LISP functionalities. It is expected that additional LISP extensions
will be proposed in the future.
The "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section 5
) is used to ease
the tracking of LISP message types.
Because of the limited type space [RFC9301
] and the need to conduct
experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this document specifies a
shared LISP extension message type and describes a procedure for
registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see Section 3
Concretely, one single LISP message type code is dedicated to future
LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely identify a given LISP
extension making use of the shared LISP extension message type.
These identifiers are selected by the author(s) of the corresponding
LISP specification that introduces a new LISP extension message type.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST
", "MUST NOT
", "SHALL NOT
", "SHOULD NOT
", "NOT RECOMMENDED
" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119
] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type
Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension
message. The type field MUST
be set to 15 (see Section 5
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
|Type=15| Sub-type | extension-specific |
// extension-specific //
Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type
The 'Sub-type' field conveys a unique identifier that MUST
registered with IANA (see Section 5.2
The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the
message is specified in the corresponding specification document.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any additional security issues other
than those discussed in [RFC9301
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. LISP Packet Types
IANA has created a registry titled "LISP Packet Types", numbered
Values can be assigned via Standards Action [RFC8126
that request for a new LISP Packet Type may indicate a preferred
value in the corresponding IANA sections.
IANA has replaced the reference to RFC 8113
with the RFC number of
Also, IANA has updated the table as follows:
| Message | Code | Reference |
| LISP Shared Extension Message | 15 | [RFC8113
| Message | Code | Reference |
| LISP Shared Extension Message | 15 | RFC 9304
IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types"
registry. IANA has updated that registry by replacing the reference
to RFC 8113
with the RFC number of this document.
The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action.
This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the
exhaustion of the LISP Packet Types.
The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First
Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure is to provide IANA
with the desired codepoint and a point of contact; providing a short
description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen
usage of the extension message is also encouraged.
6. Changes from RFC 8113
The following changes were made from RFC 8113
* Changed the status from Experimental to Standards Track.
* Indicated explicitly that the shared extension is used for two
purposes: extend the type space and conduct experiments to assess
new LISP extensions.
* Deleted pointers to some examples illustrating how the shared
extension message is used to extend the LISP protocol.
* IANA has updated the "IANA LISP Packet Types" and "LISP Shared
Extension Message Type Sub-types" registries to point to this
document instead of RFC 8113
7. Normative References
] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119
, March 1997,
] 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,
] 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
] 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,
This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR-
Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for
Thanks to Geoff Huston, Brian Carpenter, Barry Leiba, and Suresh
Krishnan for the review.