Skip to main content

Locator/ID Separation Protocol

Document Charter Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp)
Title Locator/ID Separation Protocol
Last updated 2024-01-25
State Approved
WG State Active
IESG Responsible AD Jim Guichard
Charter edit AD Jim Guichard
Send notices to (None)


LISP supports an overlay routing architecture that decouples the routing locators and endpoint identifiers, thus allowing for efficient aggregation of the routing locator space and providing persistent identifiers in the endpoint space. LISP requires no changes to endpoints or routers that do not directly participate in the LISP deployment. LISP aims for an incrementally deployable protocol, so new features and services can be added easily and quickly to the network using overlays. The LISP WG is chartered to continue work on the LISP protocol, including minor extensions for which the working group has consensus on deeming them necessary for the use cases identified by the working group as main LISP applications. Such use cases have to be documented in an applicability document providing rationale for the work done.

The working group will work on the following items:

  • Moving to Standard Track: The core specifications of LISP have been published as “Standard Track” ([RFC9300], [RFC9301]). The WG will continue the work of moving select specifications to “Standard Track” (e.g., LISP Canonical Address Format [RFC8060], LISP Multicast [RFC6831][RFC8378], etc).

  • Map Server Reliable Transport: LISP control plane messages are transported over UDP, however, in some cases, the use of a reliable transport protocol (such as TCP) is a better fit, since it actually helps reduce periodic signaling.

  • YANG Models: The management of LISP protocol and deployments including data models, OAM, as well as allowing for programmable management interfaces.

  • LISP for Traffic Engineering: Specifics on how to do traffic engineering on LISP deployments could be useful. For instance, encode in a mapping not only the routing locators associated to EIDs, but also an ordered set of re-encapsulating tunnel routers (RTRs) used to specify a path.

  • NAT-Traversal: LISP protocol extensions to support a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). The LISP WG will collaborate with the TSVWG working on NAT-Traversal.

  • Privacy and Security: The WG will work on EID anonymity, VPN segmentation leveraging the Instance ID, and traffic anonymization. The reuse of existing mechanisms will be prioritized.

  • LISP External Connectivity: [RFC6832] defines the Proxy ETR element, to be used to connect LISP sites with non-LISP sites. However, LISP deployments could benefit from more advanced interworking, for instance by defining mechanisms to discover such external connectivity.

  • Mobility: Some LISP deployment scenarios include endpoints that move across different LISP xTRs and/or LISP xTRs that are themselves mobile. Support needs to be provided to achieve seamless connectivity.

  • LISP Applicability: LISP has proved to be a very flexible protocol that can be used in various use cases not considered during its design phase. [RFC7215], while remaining a good source of information, covers one single use case, which is no longer the main LISP application scenario. The LISP WG will document LISP deployments for the most recent and relevant use cases, so as to update and complement [RFC7215] as needed.